The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-03-25

Wnom IL SOLD were competing lines ana
the constitution forbade the sale
There was testimony In the record OF
the court below from two or three wit
nesscs TO the effect that the roads were
actually competing at the time OF the safe
In 1851. There was no evidence In the
record of physical relations OF the rail-
roads and their connecting lines, except
such as was shown by the map OF the
state and country II Is entirely clear
that the supreme court must have re-
ferrcd to this testimony OF the witnesses
MS TO competition when II said that the
court below found on evidence that JUS
tihed II that the roads We're connecting.
The connections spoken OF by tho trial
court evidently meant, not physical con-
nections, but business connections. This
Is manifest. for when the supreme court
in It's opinion comes TO speak Its cou-
currence with the. court below. Il says
that railways may become competing by
reason OF their relations, control or man
agement OF other lines OF railway than
their own. and does not say that they do
become competing by reason OF their
physical connections or relations.
There Is nothing In the opinion that
iustifies the conclusion that the supreme
court held or Intended to hold that tho
more physical relations OF the companies
with themselves and with their connec-
items. made them competing lines. To
have SO held would have been to have
oyerruled two decisions of the supreme
court OF the State. viz. The East Line and
Red River Railroad Company VS., Rushing,
60 Texas, 500, Ct seq, and the Gulf. Colo
RADIO aud Santa Fe Railway Company vs..
The State, 72 Texas. i0i, In the Rush
ing case. decided in 1887, the supreme
court held that Il might take judicial
knowledge OF the geography of the state
and Of the railroads Of tho State and hnd
that two lines OF railroad were parallel
| al kal al NaNA
| tice to find that they were competing lines
when they were not parallel In that
case the court was speaking of tho East
Line and Red River railroad and the Mis-
souri,. Kansas and Texas railroad. In that
case the court did take judicial notice that
the East Line and Red River railroad was
| not parallel with the Missouri Kansas
and Texas railroad
| In the case OF the Gulf Colorado and san
| ia Pc Railway Company VS.. The state,
the court distinctly held that whether
roads were competing was a question OF
! fact and that where they had TWO or
mere common points and where they were
| parallel the court could take lunlclai mo-
! tico az IT,
| In the Rushing case the court said
II may he that this court iudlcially
| knowing the geography OF the staie
| may take notice OF tho general III
reetion Of these two roads as iiScd
nv INC statute NDutl NhHSi''iNAiNh ~
| that their lines must necessarily cross
zach other. and we must therefore
| treat them as connecting lines and not
parallel TO each other. but as 10
whether they arc competing INES
we can have no judicial knowledge
whatever, n
In the Gulf. Colorado and Santa Fe RAIL
way company case the court quoted VIVID
approval the language just cited, ana saiu
This latter proposition as a general
rule. and as applied TO the case tneh
before the court. Is undoubtedly cor
rect Whether two ROADS Wnlcn IN
tersect each other at certain point
are competitors for freight or not
must depend upon a variety OF CIR
cumstances not known to the court
This extract shows that the court UNI
dorstood competition TO mean business
competition.
THAT was n suit which sot aside trai-
GO association contract Nearly all the
roads of the State were parties to II. inc
court said that il could take judicial no.
lice that the Houston and Texas Contra
railroad runs from Houston to Dallas
and that the Gulf, Colorado and sant'
lre Railway company touches with w
lines tho same points aud that IL coul'
take judicial notice that those two roao'
were parallel and competing. and that
was not necessary for them to ind tina
the other roads in the State were com
peting.
The three cases Just referred to ostab
fish conclusvely the proposition that TN
court could not find simply from the phy
steal and geographical relations that thu
East Line and Red River railroad an'
tho Missouri Kansas and Texas railroads
were competing roads.
In tho East Line forfeiture case the su
preme court distinctly found that the!
we're not parallel and that they were no
( l., 90 fha1tN
was only when considered with reference
TO their connections. relation and contro
,, that they were competing, ana that rae
Il said the court below found on evidence
justified It,
The message OF the executive, therefore
> IL a misrepresentation OF the meaning an
effect of the East Line and Red River case
The message distinctly holds that tn
: court by reason OF the physical relations
found that the roads were competing
. when a fair Interpretation of the opinion
in the light of the two preceding cases
shows that they found exactly to the con
trary The question therefore. as q
c whether the Sherman, Shreveport an
l. southern railroad and the Missouri. Kan
sas and Texas Railroad of Texas are com
9 mating roads-it being uncontroverte
r that they are not parallel and not compel
\ ing In and OF themselves--ls a question
i of fact depending upon evidence. me oil
= under review tounu lndt tuc1 Ncip "a"
y parallel and competing. The legislator
= had right to determine that queslio
= and were required to determine II befor
g they could undertake to pass the law
n they would not have passed the law Ia
IS the roads been parallel or competing IN
/, courts have distinctly held that thes
i roads are not parallel and that they ar
o not competing in and OF Themselves, an
d The railroad commission has distinctly tol
y the legislature that they are not compel
e ing. The Sherman, Shreveport aud South
s. crn railroad is simply a prolonBation eS
e tension. branch or feeder OF the Missouri
q Kansas and Texas Railway Of Texas, an
it's stock is owned by the same person
who own the stock Of the Missouri, Kan
eas and Texas Railway Company OF Texa
II Is not true. under the authoritie
that the question of whether two road
are competing is a question OF law an
fact. where they are not parallel, q
question Of whether they are eompetln
ia one of fact to be determined, at least
the hrst instance, when the legislatul
comes TO pass law authorizing the pul
"a chase or lease OF one company by anotne
W II Is a fundamental rule of law that VINE
:, the legislature is required to ascertal
= fact in order To exercise It's power
Legislation that It has the right to mai
inquiry and TO determine that fact, ana
is true that the highest respect is sho"