The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-04-29

Nonsiuereu IN determining II the rules
ahn regulations are unjust and unreason-
able to appellee. as they have little. n
any, relevancy to that question.
There are other findings by the trial
court to the effect that the COMPRESSION
OF cotton at Houston. where the railway
was having most OF II done, was more
beneficial to the shipping public than
u compressed at the places on the line
OF road as required by the commission
rules and that this was done with less
cost and expense and Inconvenience TO
the railway company. The fact is this
was evidently the main ground upon which
the court below reached It's conclusion
mat 1t would be unreasonable and unjust
10 appellee TO enforce against It the rules
and regulations in question.
Since the decision OF the supreme court.
holding that the commission had the au-
thority to make rules and regulations
requiring cotton to be compressed at
the nearest compress points on the line of
road after being received by the railway
company, and in view of the undeniable
proposition that the compression of cotton
results in much benefit, not only to the
shipping public. but 10 tho carrier, the
conclusion must be that the trial court,
when IT in effect held that cotton could he
more advantageously compressed at Hous-
ton than at the points required by the
rules, and made the invalidity of the rules
rest upon this effect, substituted Its 1ulg-
hont and opinion upon this point for
that of the commission; and the effect was
to declare that The rules promulgated by
the commission were not the best and
wisest in the interest of all parties that
could have been made upon the subject;
that they made the mistake In not selecting
Houston as the point for COMPRISING cot
ton, instead of the interior congresses on
the line of road.
Tho tpsOtnis sipn I'm mailing tina r,,lpa and
reSuiallohs were IN the exercise oi Jurls-
dlctlon over IA subject about which 1t was
pfhltted 10 exercise some discretion aud
II u Is admitted tnaL II coulu require INC
idh"d! companies 10 cause Tue cotton 10
pc compressed ana that some pubur bene'
ms would result therefrom which is undo
hlahio~t was clothed with the anthurlE.
IA inc exercise al IT'S discreuon' to select
places where inns service should le per
formed me tact that the points selected
were hut the best under the circumstances
ana tnat Inc ruIes were not me WiSest mat
could have been made, are not grounds for
setlihS aside the entire rules anu rtl'eF
ing the railway company entirely nee OF
us duty to the public in the compression
OF cotton me public dnty which must
be admitted may be forced upon the ear
rler IN thls respect can not he cast on
because IT is not permitted IN IT'S own Wy
ana at places OF It's own selection 10 qeT-
form II, or because the authority winch
may requife ~ 10 perform tEis nntN mas
not acted as wisely IN the premises as II
may have dore.
The supreme court OF Minnesota, In state
VS.. Nandersluis i2 Mimi, l3l. in passing
upon the re@sonablenoss of rules relating
TO the practice OF medicine. says The
only limit to Legislative power in prescrib
ing conditions to the right to practice In a
profession Ia that they should be reasona-
4. l. Il.