The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-04-19

ershlp and control with others In order |
TO make cut a case OF competition. And I
II should be borne in mind that this de- /
cision was made eighteen years ago. when /
railroad matters were not understood as
they are now
will illustrate my position In this mat !
ter by reviewing some OF the examples ems
ployed by the goveruor in his veto mes
sages Gu the Missouri. Kansas and Texas
and the st. Louis southwestern bills.
He states the distance between the town
Of Greenville in Hunt county, through
which the roads OF both the Missouri, Kan
sas and Texas and the sherman, Shrove-
port and Southern pass. and the city OF
Galveston. over the sherman. Shreveport
and Southern railway 10 jefferson, thence
to Longview over the Texas and Pacific
! railway and thence over the International
and Great Northern railroad as AS miles;
1 the line over the road belonging to the
I Missouri Kansas and Texas railway to
Minecla thence over the International and
/ Great Northern 10 Galveston. Sis miles;
1 that over the line OF the Missouri. Kansas
| and Texas railway TO Dallas, thence By the
| main line of that company to Galveston.
| 443 miles: the line over the sherman,
/ Shreveport and Southern to Mckinney, and
thence over the Houston and Texas Central
| railroad sos miles. but ATTY miles should
be added TO this to get to Galveston. max
ing the distance via that route 4ii miles
instead of S2S miles
Here II is seen that In order to make out
cases OF competition the Texas and Pacific
railway the International and Great
Northern railroad and the Houston and
Texas Central railroad have to he added
to the Missouri, Kansas and Texas railway
and Sherman, Shreveport and southern
railway, making the three lines first named
volators OF the constitution along Will
the two roads seeking consolidation. And
the governor states that the sherman,
Shreveport and Southern railway Is also
connected with Galveston over toe Texas
Midland railroad and the Houston and
Texas Central railroad. thus making the
innocent Texas Midland malefactor in
order to make out another case of competi-
ton.
suppose ! will be excused for failing to
consider seriously the question as 10
whether there are competing limos OF rail-
way between Greenvillc. Texas, and 81.
Louis, Mo- in the meaning OF article 10,
section 3, Of the constitution. which would
require the forfeiture OF the charters OF
. any of the railways between those points,
: as there is no pretense that the Missouri,
Kansas and Texas or the sherman, Shreve-
rort and Southern railways extend to st,
Louis.
5 In the case OF the St Louis Southwestern
, and Tyler Southeastern railways. they
run nearly at right angles with each other,
j Neither of them to so Galveston, aid
= neither of them can reach that city WIN
I business except over the lines OF Other
roads under separate ownership and con-
. troll in the one case over the international
). and Grea, Northern. 2s2 miles. and in the
: other over the Houston East and Yves
Texas and Galveston, Houston and Hen
dorson road. 16S miles; thus making thes
c three latter roads also Indicators in orde
1t to make cut case of competition between
:, the St. Louis Southwestern and Tyle'
. Southeastern RAILWAYS.
l. These several railways. whose conncc
l. tons are invoked 10 make out a case %
I forfeiture against tho Missouri. hansa
and Texas and sherman, Shreveport an
'e Southern railways, being under OWNERSHIP
ard control different from those two roads
,- and not coming within the moaning an
- intent of the constitutional provision. an
as the supreme court has declared u
l. Missouri, Kansas and Texas and TIE Sher
man. Shreveport and Southern railway
=, we're not competitive roads by Themselves
the whole Of these cases abnu. their bein
~ connective fall 10 tho ground Bnt II
os were conceded that they could be held I
n, be competitive by their connection wit
other roads. then tho roads used for tina
~ purpose would necessarily be participant
ct in the violation OF the constitution an
at like the Missouri Kansas and Texas an
the Sherman. Shreveport and Southern
III might have their charters forfeited. Thes
he connecting roads could not aid and be pal
d. Elephants in the violation o. the constitl
dc ton and laws without snbjecting then
selves to the penalties for such violation
dc Another view OF this subject is that a
IS the railroads which participate in sur
ha violations must OF necessity cease to
competitive roads for they cen not be
er part OF consolidation which denies con
petition and at the same time afford 10 Il
OF people the benefits OF competition, The
Is still another reason why the Missouri
AVID -
Shreveport and Southern railways can n
nd be coupled with other roads Of diGere
lss ownership and control to make ont
he violation OF the constitutional provislc
ST. " they by their meditation should
on era bled TO make excessive rates and
I'D deny the people the advantages OF comp
ere ttion, they would have no right or pow
BE- to compel connecting roads to adopt SUI
in policy. and II the connecting roa
ion should consent to do so, they would &c
it'll tainly thereby become volators OF t
d.. law and liable to its penalties.
,ay Nothing In the first place, could ha
I'll induced me to challenge the decision of t
supreme court In the East Line and II
River case. and these two veto messap
in of the governor. but tho profoundest CO
IN viction that II tho policy / am combat
no should become the settled law II VOL
nav subject most of the railroads Of the SITS
100 to the forfeiture Of their charters, and
~. incalculable injury to the interests
tho people Of Texas And nothing cot
,,, induce me TO come before the public aga
NY on this question except to defend mys
aus and protect my name against the false a
malicious sisn1ers which are being hur
ms ms at me. partly by discharged railroad e
my ployes, who wish TO be revenged agail
the their former employers, and partly
inc a set of demagogues who think they
'ers aid their personal popularity BY abus
lese railroad corporations, and these
OF classes being people who do not und
'ur- stand tho question.
OF The course which has and is being p
I,a- sued towards me jusihes me in REFER
" .,,a to what have done and aided IN doing
i'ta' the past in reference to the railroad pr
usl lem. For ten or twelve years | labo
ne, mas earnestly and faithfully in congress to
W., cure the passage Of the interstate CO
oa'a merco law, In order TO protect the pu
.h against determinations and excess
~, charges and against rebates and pool
"a. "a, with what success the public knows.
80 when the legislature OF Texas passe
- law creating a railroad commission
an1 this State. It was assumed by the frie
thar of the measure that it's success would