El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1899-04-28

1
another.
"Have not all the corporations in
Texas got a right to combine and ap
ply to the state legislature for rights
and privileges? Suppose the corpora
tions did combine and did apply to the
city council for rights and privileges.
Is 1t crime to ask for concessions
from the city council? 1t is claimed
| the concessions were requested that
the corporations might combine and
consolidate.
1.-THE evidence is all contained in
Mr.. Kampmann's contract with Mr..
Tillotson. Will this court pave a way
for future decisions by holding that an
owner OF stock cannot convey it where,
when and to whom he pleases? There
is no law against me buying every dol
lars worth of stock in every bank in
San Antonio.
"The San Antonio Gas company has
the only gas plant in the city of San
for more than fifty years. During that
time it has lived on an exclusive grant
and has been exercising a monopoly on
the people of San Antonio. Why
should it have agreed with any one
that it should have the exclusive right
to sell ga?
'The attorney general says Mr..
Kampnann and Mr.. Weiss had no
right to sell all their stock to the same
people. There is no law against it.
No public sentiment is against it. You
sentiment, not law. It is to be pre-
sumed that those who now own the
stock will handle it legally. Counsel
had been asked by them, as the tele-
grams introduced show. to consult with
the secretary of state. This fact by it.
self shows that there were no secrets in
the case"
THE STATES ARGUMENT.
In the afternoon session of the court
r. H. Ward, who has been assisting
Attorney General Smith in the prose-
cution of the case, closed the argu-
meut.
He read the preamble to the city
council minutes and the ordinance
which he said gave these corporations
forty years. lease of life and then
opposition the city lighting for a term
Of five years. This council meeting
alone, he commended, proves the viola
tion Of the law. But in addition to
this, he said, there was enough testi-
mOny to prove q violation. He COM
batted the idea that the officers of the
defendant companies are rightfully in
office.
He read from the charter of the gas
company showing that a man to be
director must hold at least ten shares
of stock, while their counsel admit
that neither Mr.. Weiss nor Mr.. Kamp-
mann own q dollar in the corporations.
These men, he said, continue in Office
while all of their stock has been de-
livered and paid for, in order that the
when this litigation is over,
may be amalgamated,
Counsel has asked, he said, whether |
the attorney general would have |
brought suit simply on the grounds |
trio light, The attorney general, he
said, would have violated his oath if
be did not bring suit on that ground. |
He said that the state was not after the |
gas company's franchise to make cleo |
trict light because the gas company
had no right to make electric light. |
It was the life of the gas company itself |
that the state wanted.
In his argument Mr.. Ward said that |
the corporation was the stockholders. |
in law and common sense" he said, |
MIR. Weiss became the corporation |
governing and controlling and manag-
ng its affairs
Mr.. Ward continued that the corpor-
stiOns entered into conspiracy when
ever the scheme was concocted, which
'esulted in the sale of the stock with
OF the proposed amalgama-
ion. He then received the testimony
etting forth the facts from tae stand
point of the side he represented.
Mr.. Ward then contended that the
proved that the stock was
)eing sold by Messrs. Kampmanu and
W eiss, with the knowledge that vic.
alton of the law was intended, and
therefore it could not be pleaded that
t was an innocent sale.
He held that it was not question
whether the city was benefited by the
contract that was made for lighting
he city, but that fair supposition was
hat If Messrs. Kampmann and Weiss
led not been in the pool the city |
would have gotten the benefit of their |
business rivalry.
The issue at stake, SO he construed |
t, was not a local one, but one of deep |
interest to the state 1t was a question |
If making these corporations smenable |
% the laws of Texas.
JUDGE GREEN'S DECISION.
AS Mr.. Ward closed, the large crowd
If spectators waited silently for Judge |
Green's decision.
IL have not changed my opinion on
ny ruling on the exceptions" said |
Judge Green, land therefore l render
Judgment on the issue of unlawfully
pursuing and operating an electric
,lant in violation of it's charter. My
lecision is that the charter be forfeit
I'D
Judge Green said that if the evid-
,nce did not show consolid alton then he
lid not know what consolidation was.
he could not appreciate the fine dis
1nction between the actions of an in
ividual and stakeholder where the |
was the whole concern.
Speaking of the receivership he
aid:
LAS much as l hesitate in granting a