The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-12-31

CATS TOT tue LOCAL suipuent 10 fOTt WORT
at the rates fixed by the railroad commits
cars upon condition that Long & Co
would pay the amount that the railwa,
company would get out OF a division OF tn,
through rate from San Angelo to Kansa.
CITY which was more than the commission
rate for the haul from San Angelo to For
Worth. This demand was made BY tn,
railway company because It believed ant
had reason to believe that Long & Co. in.
tended to reship the sheep from Fort
Worth to Kansas City. Long e. Co. OBJ
jected to this for two reasons: First. they
had learned that by making local ship
ment from San Angelo to Fort Worth. OF
a local bill of lading at commission rates
and from there make an interstate ship
ment to Kansas City, the freight rate fol
the two shipments would cost them les.
than the through shipment from San An.
gelo to Kansas City; second, because they
intended TO sell the sheep at Fort WORT
Ii they could. The judgment of the dis
tr:ct court was In, favor of the railway
company, holding that the shipment as de
manded by Long & Co., II made. would
have been Interstate commerce, and there.
fore not subject to the laws of Texas OF
the rates made by the railroad commission
The court of civil appeals In rendering IL;
opinion said that the second reason gvcr
for wanting to make the local shipment
to Fort Worth was IAN afterthought an6
suhterfuge resorted to for the purpose OF
obtaining the rates fixed by the Texas
railroad commission. and that the original
purpose to ship the sheep out OF the State
had not been abandoned" The judgmen,
OF the district court was thus affirmed
by the court OF appeals, and for authority
to sustain the opinion the judge cited the
al 81 vi al
Navigation Company VS.. Insurance Com
pany, SO Texas Rep, p. Ito; the Daniel
Ball, 10 Wall, 557; Cutting VS. Navigation
Company. 46 Fed. Rep, Cal.
The case of the State VS.. Railway Com
pany, in 49 5. W. Rep, page 252, as
read it, was a case where a merchant at
Miami, on the Southern Kansas railway,
ordered car Of coal from coal mer-
chant at Panhandle, the then terminus of
the Southern Kansas railway, to be deliv-
cred I. o. b. on the Southern Kansas rail-
way cars at Pal leldle, the Miami mer-
chant to pay the freight from Panhandle
TO Miami. AT the time the purchase was
made by the Miami merchant from the
Panhandle merchant, and when the coal
was ordered by the Miami merchant, the
Panhandle merchant had no coal on hand
ana ordered the car of coal from Colo
RADIO, billed to himself at Panhandle,
where it was unloaded and transferred TO
the car of the Southern Kansas railway
and billed to the merchant at Miami. 1t
is said in the findings of the court that
this was done by all parties SO that they
might receive the benefit of the rate OF
freight from Panhandle, Texas, to Miami,
Texas, as established by the Texas rail-
way commission, which was less than the
through rate" 1t would seem that the
word they must refer only to the par
ties to the contract for the purchase and
sale of the coal. 1t Is also certain that
the contracting parties intended that the
Miami merchant was to pay the rates pre-
scribed by the railroad commission for the
local haul from Panhandle to Miami. no
more nor less. 1t is also certain that
there were two bills OF lading given. one
by the Colorado railway at the mines in
that State to the Panhandle merchant at
Panhandle, and the second bill OF iading
was given by the Southern Kansas rail-
way to the Miami merchant for the haul
from Panhandle to Miami. The original
bill of lading to the Panhandle merchant
is not given in the findings of the court
and we are not informed whether there
was anything in it to show that the car of
coal was thereby shown to be on con
tinuous voyage from the time 1t left the
mines in the State of Colorado until it
reached Miami, Texas. If there was moth
ing in the bill of lading to show that the
coal was on "a continuous voyage. then no
oral testimony was admissible to prove it,
and the judgment was wrong. IT, how
ever, the bill OF lading showed on it's face
that the shipment was to go through to
Miami. the judgment of the court was cor
rect, and the case simply develops lit
tie sharp practice or fraud to avoid the
contract and force the Miami merchant to
pay more freight than he contracted for.
1t will thus be seen that in these two
cases, decided by the same court OF civil
appeals, the decisions are construed to be
adverse to the views OF the commission.
In the first case local shipment and a
local bill OF lading were refused and
therefore no local haul was made, and
the shipper was compelled to submit TO
the dictation of the railway company, the
only one running between San Angelo and
Fort Worth, as to when and from what
point his sheep should start on their in
terstate journey and pass beyond his con-
troll and virtually depriving him of his
legal right to determine for himself which
of the eight routes by rail leading from
Fort Worth to Kansas City he should ship
over, II, in fact, he did not sell at Fort
WORTH as he testified he might do, and in
all probability deprived him of cheaper
sas City Because 1t is fact, we'll known
to all shippers, il not judicially known to
the courts, that there is neither uniform
ity nor stability in Interstate rates, and
from and to railroad eenters like Fort
Worth and Kansas City the competition
between carriers is sharp and continuous;
hence we repeat as in our seventh propo'
sition, that "a shipment becomes inter-
state commerce when 1t passes from the
control of the shipper into the hands oi
the carrier for a continuous voyage to Its
destination outside of the State" and not
before, and in my Judgment when the
shippers, Long & Co.. applied for cars to
ship their $500 sheep from San Angelo
to Fort Worth. the carrier. refusing to
furnish the cars for the reason given, was
guilty Of violation of the laws of Texas
and should have been required to pay the
penalty prescribed by our law To hold
otherwise destroys the freedom OF the
shipper and takes away from him one OF
the most valuable rights he possesses in
his business, to avail himself of the cheap
est route to market, and when and from
what point he will surrender his right
to control and direct his business in a
manner to his mind the cheapest, most
convenient and most satisfactory to him
self. Why should the laws Of this coun-
try say he has not the right to do it when
the only beneficial effect to his opponent
L. - aIlow thu carrier tn suecu1ate on the