The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-03-05
AssIGNMENr or ERRORS.

Galveston, Texas, March i.--The assign
ment of errors on which the defendant
railways asked for an appeal In the Lone
Star Injunction case were filed in the clerks
Office Of the rnited States court here to-
day. The document is long one. but the
main points may be summarized as fol-
lows: RI
!. The court erred in entertaining the
bill for injunction for the reason that 1t
disclosed no equity on its face.
.. The court erred in granting the in
junction for the reason that defendants
have the right to demand prepayment OF
freight charges, when delivered to them
by connecting carrier. without exacting
such prepayment when delivered By an
other connecting carrier.
.. The court erred in granting the in
junction for the reason that defendants
have the right TO advance freight charges
to one connecting carrier from which they
receive freight for further TRANSFORMATION
without obligation to advance freight
charges to another connecting carrier.
4. DESCENDANTS have the right to contract
with one connecting line for through
transportation OF freight, for through
joint rates. for through billing and for a
division OF through rates. without being
obligated to make the same contracts with
another connecting carrier.
elimination as falls within the purview of
the third section of the act to regulate
commerce, passed by congress February 4,
1887.
g. Water carriers operating exclusively
on the high seas do not come within the
protection of the act and are not connect
ing lines within its meaning.
Z. The controversy is wholly between
carriers and the complaint does not ex-
hibit any right under the act. which was
primarily designed for the protection Of
shippers.
s. There are no sufficient allegations on
the bill of combination or conspiracy to
entitle the compliments to preventive re-
lief. there being no allegation of malice
or unlawful motive.
o. II any one has the right to complain
Of the exacting of prepayment OF freight
charges it is the shipper and not the com
plainant.
10. The court has no machinery adapted
to the enforcement of such commands.
and can only enforce the same by per-
forming functions not appropriate to a
court. and 1t is beyond the power of the
court to compel the making OF contracts.
II. The court erred because in the sworn
answer of the Missouri. Kansas and Texas
railway all the allegations of the bill are
denied
~. That the Missouri, Kansas and Texas
railway has filed with the interstate COM
mission joint through tariff winch The
Miami Steamship company has accepted
and thereby has subjected itself to the
jurisdiction OF the interstate commission.
l3. That arrangements for prefayment
and advancing of charges are always
matter of contract between connecting
carriers. and the subject can be termi-
mated at the option OF either.
IA. That at the time the Injunction was
granted the Missouri. Kansas and Texas
railway was not a member of the South
western freight bureau. and that the ar
rangement with the New York and TcXas
Steamship company was not the result OF
arrangement but OF its own volition.
15 The New York and Texas steamship
Company is necessary party to this
suit. and without 1t being so made the
complainant could not have the relief
PRAYED for.
49, That the act to regulate interstate
commerce.. and the amendments thereto.
provides its own machinery and Its own
remedies for the enforcement thereof, and
no right of Injunction is thereby given
upon the complaint of any private sutton.