The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-05-14
THr CONSOLIDATION BILL
-oxs OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
cf pArLRoAD COMMISSIONERS.
Announces that He VIII
Not Make Up His Mind Dehniteis
Until Next Monday.


80 a, the answers handed the gov
nor by the attorney general and the
.l,road commission to his questions with
.a N the new Katy consolidation bill.
,,,s. ,,ms will be up on this bill next Tues
a. As to what his excellency will do
-.,,h n. no one knows. Referring to this
,..,tsr this morning. he stated to The
a., correspondent that he had committed
.,,,.alt in no manner with regard thereto
ma that the incident was in no wise
o,osed because OF the making public Of the
correspondence hereto attached.
az will" said he, make up my mind
mia hill next Monday evening and not
Sssore. and no man can say that he knows
What / am going to do with 1t and tell
the truth
The straight tip is. however, that every
~.ilroad consolidation bill that has been
rassed is in fair way OF being vetoed
rnIess the legislature passes the antl-free
aaas bill and the bill making the giving OF
rsbates a felony, although 1t is no sure
Ming that the passage OF these bills would
snsuTa the approval of the consolidation
bills.
Governor Joseph D. sayers. Executive Or
flee. No. .,.
Tsyas May 5--Governor: We are in re-
oa1nt of your note of this date incloslng
,o ne senate bill No. 1893, with your re-
onest that we give It close consideration
and give you our opinion with reference
thereto.
nears to have been drawn with the inten-
ton OF avoiding objections which were
nit vi "a
general purpose.
As ali the rights Of the State as to pend
inc Irrigation are reserved by this BILL we
sea no objection to Its becoming law,
and as the consolidation OF the two rail-
roads can not be contaminated until the
sherman. Shreveport and Southern rail-
way shall have built and extended the line
a, its road to the east line of this state
IN tha direction to Shreveport, and until
the Missouri, Kansas and Texas road shall
have extended It's line to the city of san
Antonio and unless these extensions shall
he made within two years from the passage
NJ this act, this may be considered as an
,nducement to the signing of the bill.
We believe the extension of the Mis-
souri,, Kansas and Texas railway to the
east line of the State and to Shreveport
La, would open up new and important
line OF commercial communication between
Northern Texas and the markets of New
Orleans and the East. and give the people
the beneht OF competition between this
line of road and the Texas and Pacific
railway; and that the extension OF Its line
OF road to San Antonio would give TO the
people the benefit of competition with the
International and Great Northern railroad
and that In both of these cases the well
fare OF the people OF the State would be
promoted. Very respectfully,
John H. Reagan, Chairman.
l.. J. Storey. Commissioner.
Governor Joseph D. sayers. Executive or
fee.
Attorney Generals Office, Austin, Texas
May IL. 1S99,-Dear Sir: / have received
from you copy OF senate bill No. 1913, to-
gether with your request for my opinion
in reference to the constitutionslity OF sale
BILL and such other suggestions as l may
see proper TO make.
Referring to my letter OF March 10 t
you regarding senate bill No. 154, which
provided. among other things. that the
Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway com
pany Of Texas could purchase the Sherman
Shreveport and Southern railway. and CIV
Ing authority TO the said Sherman, Shreve
port and Southern Railway company Il
sell 10 the said Missouri, Kansas anC
Texas Railway company OF Texas, passed
upon and reviewed the conditions as the,
existed In said bill No. 154; which condi
lions were exactly the same as when thu
case of the State VS.. the East Line ant
Red River Railroad company was tried
The connections of the Sherman, Shreve
port and Southern at the time of the pass
age OF said bill No. 1874 were the same al
existed when the said East Line case wa
tried IN the court. Keeping in view tina
the East Line and Red River Railroad
and the Sherman, Shreveport and South
erh railway Is the same line of railway
and that said bill No. 154 provided for ant
required no changed conditions in eithe
the Missouri, Kansas and Texas railway o.
IN the Sherman, Shreveport and Southern
railway ] considered then, and do nov
believe that the case of the East Line ant
he'd River Railroad VS.. the State, in tn
,ota Texas, page 434, was in point AM
decisive OF the question as to the consti
tationality of said senate bill No. 1874.
therefore followed 1t and concluded an
50 advised that said senate bill No. Is
was Unconstitutional. From that position
40 not now recede.
mere are several material difference
and changes made In senate bill No. S3s
now before me, from bill No. 1874. I will
nor repeat all the changes and differ
ences, but call your attention to probabl
most OF the material differences.
l. Senate bill No. 154 found by affirma
i've legislation declaration that the line
o. railway owned and operated by tn
hissouri, Kansas and Texas Railway com
psny of Texas. extending into various part
OF the State, and the line OF railway owne
ana operated by the sherman, Shreveport
ana southern Railway company, extendin
rom Mckinney. in Collin county, to Jeffer
son, In Marion county, are not parallel o
competing lines of railway" whereas 1
senate bill No 1888 this declaration Sis no
only omitted from 1t, but the followin
provision appears in section thereof
ana this act shall not he conclusive q
.ae rights OF the State as to any questio
Sl law or fact necessary or presumed I
nave been determined by the legislator
~. ~ order to comply with article 10, sec
IONS IONS and Of tho constitution OF tn
state OF Texas"
Inc difference In the above two point
S Sin easily appear to be in favor of til
i seate IN the last bill. The question of
isisiative finding of the fast Of competin
.nes between the two roads is eliminate
rom the last bill and affirmatively re
essed as question of law and fact fo
ynulclal determination II necessary c
proper In the Judgment Of its officers ths
eurn course should be pursued.
II. In bill No. 1874 both of the road
were LEFT and remained in the same pos
eion relative to each other and with III