The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-04-19
JUDGE REAGAN HIT BACK
Takes Exception to an Article Of an East
Texas Paper
cRlTIclSlNG HIS POSITION ON VETOED BILL
The Venerable Statesman Reitcrates
His Views and Is Quite salty In
Referring to His Critics.

an article in the Houston Post OF the
14th inst, copied from the Tyler Daily
Courier, and printed On the editorial page
OF The Pest without comment. In this
article 1t is said; THE present position
Of Railroad Commissioner Reagan is in
applicable" And 1t proceeds to say; The
letter which he forwarded to the Dallas
News Saturday seems to concluslvely
prove that his reasoning powers have fall
len into serious decay"
The published letter which the writer
Is commenting on, and the one am now
writing, which l shall offer for publica-
tion, shall be my answer to this article.
and will. hope relieve the solicitudc of
the Courier on account of my decayng
mental powers. can we'll understand
that my letter may be inexplicable to the
writer Of the article taken from the
Courier, for his comments on 1t show that
he did not understand and that he is
probably incapable OF understanding the
subject discussed in it.
What is the evidence offered to show
that my position is "inexpllcable," and
that my reasoning powers "are fallen into
serious decay" The evidence relied on
is my letter to Senator Cough of the 22d
of March. On the nth of March ultimo
in answer to a request made by Governor
Sayers for the opinion Of the railroad
, commission on the bill proposed to au-
thorize the Missouri, Kansas and Texas
Railway company of Texas to purchase
tho Sherman, Shreveport and Southern
railway, Commissioner Storey and | eX-
pressed the opinion. In substance, that
the bill properly guarded the interests
CT the Safe, and was not Objectionable.
y And in my separate opinion to the gov
ernor l said:
d ut Is inferable from the decision Of the
:. supreme court, in the case of the East
a Line and Red River Railway company
against the State CT Texas. Is Texas 4Si
:, that the court suppcs ed them to be com
peting lines of road. The supreme court
after quoting article 10. section Of thu
. constitution, say that;
THE curt below found, on evidence
= that justified It, that respondent and III
corporation to whom 1t sold. were compel
II ing lines
II This was simply statement, in sub
ls stance, OF the conclusion of the trial cour
r on that question. The opinion include
8, no statement of facts on which tina
"a statement was based nor any reason VIII
st they were competing lines This fac
le makes an inquiry into the facts on tina
> point reasonable and necessary, II we air
ze to reach the truth as II should bear oil tn
ed question affecting the bill under consio
ae eraticn There were other ample ground
to Justify the decision Of the court as mad
il en- the questions before It, and no ques
a. ton Of the decision can grow oui OF tn
70 examination of the facts as to whetht
70 they were competing railways"
e After making further statement
facts showing that the two roads name
were not mpeting roads, | said that:
II assume that bath the governor ar
this commission, when called upon to pa
upon constitutional questions affecting u
rights of others must meet that rcspons
OF bility fer themselves and not place II
'e- the shoulders OF others. II there con
"a be a doubt as 10 whether these lines we
,lo C mpeting that doubt would with me
" determined in favor Of the loose ana u
ne reasoned statement made in the opinl'
lea of the court above referred to- But wi
In the patent facts before US II is not po
- sible TO assume that these lines OF pallw
" are competing in the sense of the consl
oer tuition and laws of Texas
hat And | added that:
an, ''If these lines of railway, under the !
lite disputable facts before us, can be hcld
es- be competing. and can so authorize l
I,.,t. oh han
err safely assume that there are very Il
of railroads in Texas whose charters can +
md he annulled for similar reasons. and
would be difficult to determine how a
his railroad hereafter TO he built In this ST.
nee could escape like fate.
of Now. after all that has been said on 9
sel question. / roafflrm all that said in Il
letter to the governor, and l appeal to
language OF article 10, section OF
constitution, and to the God given pow
n reason and conscience to sustain tn
views. The prohibition in that section
the constitution is that no lease or p
chase OF the works or franchises or
IAN in any way control any railway corpo
ern tion owning CT having under It's contro
ort- parallel or competing line. rms lin
octs The prohibition TO lines under the own
shin and control of one company II
M reference TO railroads under the oy
Iade ership and control OF different railr
ON companies for then competition bene
the public. For illustration, take
VI Houston and Texas Central, the Misso
ANY Kansas and Texas and the Gulf, Color
ent. and santa Fe railways. They extend II
lstl- the north to the south side Of Tel
laae They are parallel lines, not far apart
NJ compete 10 a large extent with each OF
Cal fer freight and passengers. II under
w. rule supposed to be established In the
Line and Red River case, roads IN
was different ownership and control can
Mr.. grouped together and their charters
all feited for being competing lines, t
ex- their charters, and the charters OF me-
that all the other railroads OF Texas may
forfeited for the same reason. But,
fact. because of their being under DIFF
emit ownership and control. they are
49, liable to have their charters forfeited,
their competition is OF great value 10
snlh state and people.
Rev. The supreme court in the East Line
inps Red River case makes the following ST
,,,or ment, to-wit:
ayos "Disregardlng their connections
s Ui other railroads and lines OF transpo
W. ton the East Line and Red River and
Missouri, Kansas and Texas railroads
ieht' not competing railroads, when SAID