The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-05-14

sas, snsi .isn, Snrevepor and Southern
49, extended 10 the east line of
Is empowered to connect with anv rasis. =,
extending from Its terminus a. tho ess,
| lne OF the state OF Texas 70 tina citv :,
shreveport, La, and 10 acquire from s,ch
iiac ia Louisiana by lease for A term "a,
exceeding twenty-five years. the nee ~
sucn line or by trackage or running rights
asreemeh, Tor a term not exceeding twen-
so years tne right to run Its trains
10 and into Shreveport, and TO also a.
| qnire the use OF terminal facilities IN ~.
SAID city OF Shreveport for term mot ers
ceeding twenty-five years. "a
NOW under the new bill, No. 33S. thess
aooVe changes and conditions follow ana
exist after the sale by the sherman
shreveport and Southern Railway com
pany to, and the purchase OF ii by the MIS-.
souti' hahsas and Texas Railway com
paus oi ieAas. Inen, the Sherman, Shreve-
/ port ana southern will have materiallv
ninerent connections and different reia.
ions With Its connecting lines from that
| now existing. In passing upon the oues-
lion as 10 whether or not said bill asa IL In
violation OF section 5, article 10, of our
| constitution. II should be viewed and con-
sldered from the standpoint that would
exist should 1t become a law aud Its pro-
Visions executed In full Then. from this
note some OF tho facts anG changed condi-
lions that will exist under the new bill
Inc coJnties OF Collin. Hunt, Hopkins,
| WOOD, FRANKLIN, Camp, Titus, Norris, Uass
ana Marion now have only one line, by
conr ections, to Shreveport, but with TINS
Dill law these counties have an addi-
| tional line, direct line. to Shreveport;
ana shreveport is the nearest point from
all these counties to navigabie water, Now
|
two roads have been held to be competing.
with the changed conditions new ana
substantial competition is given to every
| point on 1t where the two roads have been
held to compete. you also give to that
point new competition OF fact ana sue
cinctly stated, 1t would be, without the
new bill the lines are competing at one
point as held in the East Line case; with
the new bill you may suppress that compe-
tlo1 at that point; but you in return give
to that identical point new and substantial
1 comp etition, and from every other polnt
on the road you take away no COMPETE
4 tion, but give, as above shown, substantial
and additional competition.
The question as to whether or not tine
two lines are competing within the mean
ing and intent OF our constitution the
I weight Of authorities hold, Is a question OF
law and fact. and our supreme court says,
in the case of East Line and Red River
Railroad company vs.. Rushing SO Texas.
in the opinion by Judge Willie on page
31S, that when question as to such CONF
petition is raised. the court or Jury must
have proof upon the subject as in case OF
any other fact submitted for its considera-
} ton"
In reviewing the constitutionality OF the
} bill under consideration l shall deem 1t
not improner or Improbable to quote and
cite a few authorities on judicial con-
; structon OF constitutional provisions,
! Our supreme court, through Judge Stray
ton, in the case of Burlier vs. Torrey, In
GO Texas, page u, says; The rule is that
law will not be declared unconstitu-
tlonal unless 1t Is clearly so, and in cases
of doubt 1t will be held valid. The opnioa
OF the legislature OF It's constitutional
power is entitled to great weight, and II
it had not clearly the power 10 suspend
for a time the right of the State to for
felt the right of purchasers of school lands,
the question is, to say the least, matter
I OF such doubt as to render 1t improper
for this court TO declare It's act unconsti-
: tutional." The court in the above opinion
was passing on an act OF the legislature OF
} February 16 1885, extending the time
within which purchasers OF school lands
; could pay interest and prevent or avoid
forfeiture of their purchase, and not
i, wifhstandjng that in article vii, section 4
of our constitution, 1t Is declared The
lands herein set apart to the public free
, school fund shall be sold under such regu'
J lations at such times, and on such terms
as may be prescribed by law; and the leg
islature shall not have power to grant any
relief to purchasers thereof" The courI
3 declined to declare the above act OF Feb
ruary 16, 1885, unconstitutional but an
nounced the doctrine above quoted. The
above rule, stated by our supreme court, Ii
no innovation OF the law; it is the genera
3 rule. "SedgwIch on Construction OF STAT
s utery ami Constitutional Law" page 400
t says: The leading rule in regard TO the
judicial construction of constitutional pro-
visions Is q wise and sound one which de-
:, clares thar, in case of doubt, every posi-
4 BILE presumption and intendment will b'
r made in favor of the constitutionality o
r the act In question, and the courts vii
i only interfere in case Of clear and unques
v toned violation OF the fundamental law
4 1t has been repeatedly said that the pre-
e sumption is that every State statute, tht
4 object AMI provisions OF which are amonl
the acknowledged powers of legislation. II
I valid and constitutional, and such pre-
d sumption Is not to be overcome unless th'
4 contrary is clearly demonstrated II
n support OF this proposition. see FLETCHER
VS.. Peck, 6 Cranch, 81 Ex-parte McCol
8 lon, | Cowan, 564; Morris VS.. the People
i 8 DEMO, 3s1; Newell VS.. the People,
l Seld., 1Oa per Edmonds Judge DeCaml
= VS.. Eveland, 10 Barb, 81. The Supreme
y Court OF New York in the case OF the SUI
Mutual Insurance company VS.. the CIT!
= of New York. Sanford, 10, said: Il
5 has been always said that the power
o courts OF Justice 70 declare the nullity o
= legislative acts which violate the proyi
$ sions either of the constitution OF tn
d United States or of the State, while 1t j
t not doubted, shall be exercised with ex
g IRENE caution, and never where serious
: doubt exists as TO the true Interpretation
r OF the provisions alleged to be repugnant'
n "Cooley's Constitutional Limitations pagi
It 1873, announces and supports by authori
g ties this statement I'm declaring a Law
!: unconstitutional, a court must necessarii.
V cover tie same ground which has alread'
a been covered by the legislative department
o in deciding upon the propriety OF enactn'
e the law. and they must Indirectly oyerrul
. tho decision OF that coordinate depart
o ment. The task Is therefore deicat
one aud only to be entered upon with re
Q luctance and hesitation.
e Connected with the bill before me, con
q sheraton should be given to the fact tina
al II is the second expression OF legislatiy
d authority given by this Legislature TO IN
! Missouri, Kansas end Texas Railway com
" many OF Texas TO buy. and the Sherman
/