The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-12-20

was tribunal clothed with authority to
guard the interests Of the people and it
was proper that it should be clothed with
authority to protect itself against villifl-
cation and bull-dozing. Mr. Ward cited
number of authorities in support of the
power claimed for the commission in this
case and relating its exercise under analo-
gous circumstances. The statute, Mr..
Ward argued, confers all the power los
sessed by district and county courts in
contempt cases.
Recess until D. m.
At the afternoon session Mr.. Ward pre-.
duced authorities in support of tn, con-
tention that il was not essential that .be
legislature should have provided m icl,inerv
for the commission for the exercise vi the
power TO punish for contempt, said power
having unquestionably been conferred. it
could be exercised at common law. NJ.
Ward also quoted authorities to show that
contempt need not necessarily be com
mitted in the face of the court.
In conclusion. Mr.. Ward contended that
the matter which was the subject of the
Polk letter complained of as being con-
temptuous is still pending before the
commission and that consequently there
could be no question after applying the
analogy obtaining as to court as TO
whether there was ground for contempt
proceedings OF not. He cited the emer-
gency rate act of 1897 as amended in 1898
to show that the rate attacked by Colonel
Polk was not final.
Replying to Mr. Ward, Mr.. Terry did
not think that such perpetual power as
claimed for the commission by that gen
tleman could possibly be conferred except
in specific terms. even it were admitted
that it should be wise TO confer IL. In
his opinion, ii was extremely doubtful that
the legislature ever intended to confer
upon the commission the power TO punish
for contempt except in cases Of disregard
of its process to enforce the attendance
of witnesses. There was nothing in the
commission law or in the penal code that
he could find that conferred power upon
the commission TO punish for contempt or
which required of peace officers that they
take charge of defendants or execute the
commissions judgments in such cases.
While the Polk letter was addressed to the
members Of the commission, 1t was not
intended TO be used before the commits
SION said Mr.. Terry. hence the application
of the case eX parte John Ireland ct al,
in which 1t was held that contemptuous
document addressed to the judge of the
Guadalupe county district court was not
ground for contempt proceedings because
not intended to be used in court. Going
back to the campaign of 1892. Mr.. Terry
recalled the arguments OF the friends of
the railroad commission amendment
claiming that they were to the effect
there was no intention OF comforting upon
the commission the powers now set up for
It by Ward
Referring to that gentleman's conten-
ton that the commission decisions were
never final and consequently never sub
ject to criticism, Mr.. Terry saw no limit
10 the commissions power TO cite people
for contempt Mr., Ward appeared, it
seemed TO him, bent upon comforting
power upon the< commission which the
people never contemplated when they
created IL and which made II more auto
cratic and more 10 be feared than the car
of Russia Yet newspaper articles and
persopal criticisms of the commission
much worse than Colonel Folks letter
has been published but their authors had
never been cited in contempt.
AT the conclusion OF Mr., Terry's argu-
ment the commission retired for consul
tation and in the course OF few minutes
returned and the chairman announced
that the demurrer would be overruled and
asked IL, respondent had anything further
TO offer. Mr.. Terry replied mo. sir;
respondent stands on his demurrer"
The chairman then announced that
final decision would not be rendered until
ii o'clock tommorw morning, until which
,.nna the onur la ion adjourned.