The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-03-21

Interpretation OF nftiClc ~. EeCuon ., OF
the constitution until it shall have been
modified CIR reversed by the same tn
bunal.
IL may not be considered foreign TO tho
consideration Of the question to ask why
the road extending from Mckinney Via
Gtcenvlie 80 jefferson, and now kncwn rs
the Sherman. Shreveport and southern
railway, was not included in the act OF
April i6, 1891 which authorizes a single
corporation. nav known as the Missouri.
Kansas aud Texas Railway company of
Texas. 10 purchagc. consolidate and opet-
ale ten or more different roads therein
named. II then bore the same relation TO
the owners Ct tho Missouri, Kansas and
Texas Railway company Of Texas that II
now bears and that the other roads en-
braoed In the act then bore.
Attention Is also Invited to the doclara-
ton In the bin that; "rhe lines OF rail-
way owned and operated by the Missouri.
Kansas and Texas Railway company OF
Texas. extending into various parts OF the
State. and the hne CT rallwa> owned and
operated by the sherman, Shreveport and
Southern Railway company ere not paral-
lei or competing" II this decl ration
should be held as limited 10 the physical
relations OF the Sherman, Shreveport and
Southern railway on the one part to the
limos OF railway now owned and operated
by tho Missouri. Kansas and Texas Rail-
and not as also extending 10 the physical
relations of the lines of railway owned
and operated by the Missouri Kansas and
Texas Railway company Of Texas In refer
onco to themselves the query arises, why
Is II made to appear in this bills Has Il
beon put there fer the purpose OF pre-
venting judicial inquiry ard for es,oppipg
the state from showing that the physical
| relations between the lines of railway al
teoted are not such as are alleged In the
! declaration? | do not wish to be under-
stood as Insisting that this declaration
would be considered as an ostoppel to the
state, but II has been so held by some
| courts
IN conclusion. 7 earnestly invite a most
careful consideration Of the question here
IN involved in tho hope that there may be
| entire harmony between the legislative and
judicial departments OF the government
and that the viii OF tho people. as lndi-
! Gated In the constitution. may be oh
served. Any substantial difference be-
tween tho law making and judicial powers
as TO inc proper Interpretation OF the con-
| sutuis-- upon 90 important subject
| would present a very grave condition In
deed, and should be avoided IL possible
For that purpose, and that alone | havo
! thought It my duty to return the pending
| BIZ for further consideration
The opinion Of the attorney general in
reference 10 its oonstitutionality il hereto
! appended Tor the consideration Of the sem
ave Joaeph d, Saycrs
Governor.
Governor Joseph d. sayers. Executive
Ohice Austin Texas.
Attorney Generals Office. Austin, Texas
March 19-Dear Sir; In reply to
your requess OF the 18th Inst
| asking for my opinion in writing as
| to whether or not senate bin No 1874.
which you hand to me. is constitutional. |
DEG TO say to you: That II is my opinion
! that said bill Is unconstitutional.
In Article Y, Section 8 OF our constitu-
ton 1t is declared that mo railroad or
! other corporations or the lessees purchas-
| ors or managers OF any railroad corpora
! ton. shall consolidate the stock. proper
! ~ or franchises of, or in any way con-
| troll any railroad corporation owning or
having under its control parallel or
! competing line; nor shall any officer OF
such railroad corporation act as an officer
Of any other railroad corporation owning
or having the control of parallel or COM
peting line"
This clause in the constitution 10 clearl.
inhibltory. Then we meet tho PROPOSE
ton. are the two roads referred to in the
bill either parallel or competing. This Is
question of both law and fact
We have carefully examined the tran.
script and papers on file in the clerks of.
lce Of the supreme court, in the case OF
|
rany appellant. VS.. the State OF Texas
appellee and alHo the opinion OF our
supreme court (see Texas Reports Vel
70 page 43i) affirming the judgment Of
tho lower court, which held that tho sale
OF the East Line and Red River Railroad
company TO the Missoui$, Kansas and
| Texas Railway company, made on the 2Stl
day OF November, 1881 was in violation
of Section 5, CT Article x, Of our constitu-
ton
II Is well to hear in mind that the said
East Line and Red River railroad .oicrred
TO in said case s the same RAILROAD is tho
! Sherman Shreveport and Southern railway
referred 10 in said hil av.d that this Mis-
soIri, Kansas and Texas Railway company
| Of Texas mentioned In said bill. own ana
operate tho same roads In Texas that the
Missouri, Kansas and fexas Railway com
Iany mentioned IN said decision, then
| owned and operated In Texas at the dato of
said sale II is fact also. that both OF
| said roads have the same connections now
| that they had ut the date of said sale and
| the trial of Faid cause.
In his conclusions OF fact District Judge
| Key who tried the cause, said l'lsre-
| gardiug their connections with other rail-
! roads and lines of transportation, the East
Line and Red River and Missouri, Kansas
and Texas railroads were not competing
| roads when said sale was made. Couhid-
cred with referesfS 10 such connections
| they were competing roads.
In the opinion Of our supreme court,
on page 446, 75 Texas. they say; we
further concur with the court below IN
the holding that railways By reason OF
their relations with, control or manage
men; OF other lines than their own, may
| become. within the meaning OF the law
competing lines. though the railways
| owned by them may not in fact conneat'
And again, after quoting Article X Sec
ton 8. of our constitution, the supreme
court, on page 4iS, in the same opinion
saws: "The court below found, on eVi-
dence that justified II, that respondent
and the corporation 90 whom u sofa were
compelling lines. The constitution Tor
babe the sale. -, r.,
In the case OF the Gulf, Col
orado and Santa Fe Railway company
We state. In the 72d Texas, on page AlV
the court says: But the authorities cileo
show that we must take notice OF INC
geography of the State and al least OF il'
nayigable streams. II is a matter OF ms
t,ry that important lines OF railroad one,
established have remained as hNed AND
90 permanent in their course as the RIVER
Themselves. They supercede IN toe nlaa
ali other modes of travel between tne
nolnts which they touch and become as wei
| II NOT better. known than any other geo
rrapbical feature OF the country lhei
LEGALITY becomes notorious and indisput