The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-02-23
TWO DEMURRERs FILED.
The International aud the Santa fc
Against the Lone Star Line.
SUSTAINING THEIR FORMER NOTICES.
Complatnsnt's Attorneys submit Ar
fidasits showing That Bnsinc.s
Has been Diverted.

Galveston. Texas. February 22.-The in
junction case Of the Lone Star STEAMSHIP
company against the international and
Great Northern, the Gulf, Colorado and
santa Fe and the Missouri, Kansas and
Iexas of Texas, was called for hearing In
the Federal court this morning at lC
O'Clock. but all parties not being ready, Il
was continued until the afternoon session
Mr. james f. Haserman, solicitor of the
Missouri, Kansas and Texas system Mir.
ID. Miller, vice president and traffic man
ager OF the system MIR 7. s. Miller, gea-
eral attorney for the Missouri Kansas and
Texas Railway Company of Texas, and Nj.
y. ". Allen general freight agent OF the
same company. were on hand 10 represent
the Missouri. Kansas and Texas Mr.. j. W.
Terry, general attorney OF the Gulf. Colo
RADIO and Santa Fe was present 10 repre-
sent his company. and Judge n. A. Sted.,
man, general attorney, and MIR. G. H. Tur-
ner, general freight agent OF The Intcrna-
tional and Great Northern. We're present TO
look after the interests OF that line. Sir.
Marc McLemore and Mr.. John Neethe APP
peared for the complainant, the Lone Star
line.
AT p. m. tae hearing was begun by the
reading of the original bill OF complaint,
the demurrers OF the International ana
Great Northern and of the Gulf, Colorado
and Santa Fe, filed this morning. and the
answer OF the Katy made on yesterday,
The d.irnurrers OF the TWO roads arc ex-
actly alike in wording.
Fist. they demur that the complainant
does not show that 1t Is entitled to the re.
lief prayed for.
Second that 1t appears there are other
parties 10 the suits, namely, the New York
and Texas Steamship company, which Is
not included In the bill.
Third that II such cause does exist as
the Lone Star line alleges. the same is &C.
tefminable at law. and that this court has
no Jurisdiction.
Fourth, II appears from the bill that the
relief sought for is under an act OF coll
gress to protect trade and TO regulate com
merce and that under said act the only
remedy given to a private party is suit
for threshold damages that the only party
entitled TO IaaiIIian a bill for Injunction
is the government of the United States by
its district attorney. The defendants fur
Their allege hat they have the legal right
to say what parties they will credit and
those they win not credit. The roads say
they have peiIev' right TO select the con-
necticn they desile to do business with.
ard that they may name one steamship
company without the other. Defendants
further show that the Lone Star line fails
to allege any facts which show why the
roads should be compelled to answer pip
cess of court TO enter into traffic relations
with it.
The attorneys for the Lone Star line tlen
read a number of affidavits showing that
since the roads had served notice requiring
the complainant 10 prepay freight charges.
merchants from all over the State had
Cancelled their orders to ship by the Lone
Star line. were giving their business TO the
Mallory and Morgan steamship lines.
Attorney McLemore made the argument
for the Lone Star line and explained that
tho SUI. had been brought under the pro-
visions of section 3 o. the interstate com
merce act and not under the act OF con-
grass 10 regulate commerce, IS had heen
charged by the international and the Santa
Fe in their demurrers lie maintained
that "a ccnsI!raoy was intended against the
Lone Star line. and closed by requesting
thai the temporary restraining order be
made permanent
At the conclusion Of his argument court
adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morn
Ing. when the case will be resumed.