The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-06-30

EANshh' ieAass June $3.50 lar as can DC
observed from here. the Gulf, Beaumont
and Kansas City Railroad company Is the
only transportation corporation having re-
cefved permission from che Twenty-sixth
legislature to consolidate with other eor-
porations of the same character. which is
making preparations to extend It's lire.
although with but one exception every
consolidation bill passed at the recent ses :
sion provides for new mileage as a .,ondi-
ton precedent to the exercise of the rights
granted. The Cotton Belt. which WINS
without being required to lay down any
new track, granted permission TO absorb
Sne Tyler Southeastern, Is. however nv
( enueavoring to acquire the property Of a
road already in operation, seeking 10 gain
admission into Houston and other points
With regard to two OF the consolidation
acts In question--those authorizing mo
Houston and Texas Central and the Texas
and New Orleans to absorb various ara
sunury lines-there is nothing doing. To-
gether they provide for the construction Of
ABOUT 200 miles of new road, ..ome o. 1t
OF considerable Importance. but there is
well-grounded suspicion afioat that they
VIII not be taken advantage of. That tnejr
provisions are distasteful to the owners
OF the properties in question is no secret.
out the Texas representatives of said oNa
ers are DESTROYS of seeing the extensions
required therein made, and recently went
TO New York to argue for the acceptance
OF the bills as they stand How they sue
ceeded has not been made public but at
the present writing the impression is well
aenned that everything is against them
AS to the act authorizing the Missouri.
Kansas and Texas to absorb the Sherman,
Shreveport and Southern and providing for
extensions to San Antonio and the State
line in the direction of Shreveport the
oeneheiaries thereof profess anxiety to te-
gin to operate Hereunder provided they
are relieved of certain suit pending
against them in the district court 81 Dali
las county. The petition in SAID ruit,
winch Is for the forfeiture OF the charter
OF the Katy. vas prepared by ex-Attorney
General Crane about two years ago. all
though not filed until his term of office I
mad nearly expired. Various sensational
reasons for Mr. Cranes action In delaying
the bringing of this suit have been al
legged but so far as known there is moth
ing Of record upon which to base any of /
the suggestions which have been INDUCED |
IN with regard thereto. The grounds upon
which the ex-attorney general sought to
Deprive the Katy of its corporate existence
are that the special act of 1891, under
WHICH the lines now composing the sys-
tenn were consolidated is unconstitutional;
snat the Katy OF Texas pays the concen-
ration charges on cotton afterwards moved
out OF the State all rail by the Katy OF
Kansas, without participating in the
through rate and that the KATY Of Texas
IS dominated by the Katy of Kansas, it's
officers being mere dummies and its ac-
counts and offices kept in the state but
pretense.
AS to the first allegation. It would be
bard 10 controvert the proposition that
the question raised is res adjudicata The
suit pending against the Katy In the ed
erai courts at the time the act OF 1891 was
passed was subsequently dismissed upon a
recitation that paid act was compromises;
mat its terms had been complied with,
and that the Missouri, Kansas ana Texas
corporation of Texas had been formed in
compliance with the terms thereof. whe
seeond allegation. II proven. would consll-
ule put an aggrayDtion and not furnish
,'ounus Tor forfeiture OF chsrier The
MIRA allegation. while xHstainabie when
ne petition waS first written. could not
ave been sustained when the suit was
,'ed. and from all accounts, "a uususiein-
pie now, the corporation having taken
ne necessary steps 70 comply with the
Az IN ne case Ia The latter part Of tLs
ear of lsss- However. although the Katy
onsos'caii0n asi passed by tho last legiS-
Atufe proyices that nothing th6rein con- /
aioed shall b. c9nrffucd a. ansctlna IN ,
ny manner tho discretion 81 the affcrrey
e9efAl "a pro1ecute OF not 20 prosecute
ny fnit pending between tao State ~
'ctas and me Missouri Kansas and Texas
aiway, Nr smith does not feel like TAX
~ ne initiatiye In negotiations thar msv
80 70 ne dismissal Of the suit Ia qnss-
The infoFma,Ion uroa Which II wss
-.