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

Ikusffp, choS' 80. ...xn
-. issued to the press this morn
~ ,,,road Commissioner Storey
:, the Railroad Commission OF
j. Austin, Texas. December lS.-The
"a commission of Texas having un-
..,asration questions presented IN
"a forms. by various shippers III
II sh,ch are in substance as follows I.
galway company the lega'
..s.sc to receive and trans
.rty. sucb ar live stock
"a cotton, M freight rates
u.,.a nv the railroad COM
~. Of Texas when rendered for
NJ MI interior station IN
3. transportation on "a locni
~ Iadfng, naming Gnlvestoh'
.thur. Fort Worth or other
~. IN Texas, at or near the stnte
:. The destination of the ship
!, Notwithstanding it is the III
IN attention of the shipper, az
a lpoiut of destination, to reship
d treieht on II new bill of lndihs'
same other carrier, to mafket
some point beyond the limits Oh
states
IA in view OF the fact that some delays
occurred and controversies arisen
.,.h shinments and as some of the
so,d companies have, as we are IN
M advised their employees to dlsre-
the commission rates on sucn SNIP
4 we deem 1t proper in this public
IN 10 say that this commission mas
A,rmly held that on all such shipments
mmmission rates must apply, ana
nm company can not legally refuse to
mi cars upon a legally made demand
,uch shipment, nor refuse to receive
transport the property at the rates
ribed by the commission, and re-
10 furnish the cars or TO execute such
d. ladng, and 10 transport the prop
tstween such points as are named
ns bill Of lading at the commission
y subjects the carrier, under the laws
|flas, to heavy damages and penalties.
view of the further fact that it Is
landed that there is a diversity or
hlon in the courts upon this subject,
Is we are informed by one OF the
! h railroad lawyers in Texas that he
i upon three decisions rendered by
courts OF Texas as authority to sustain
position taken by the railroad COM
la against the conclusion reached by
commission on this very important le-
question, deem it proper to state for
Information of shippers interested the
1 ms which have controlled the COM
J hon In the conclusion 1t has reached
! this question. And, first, let me say
Tie controlling question is, are such
elnts State or interstate commerce?
such shipments are State commerce.
ne controlled by the laws of Texas
no rates, rules and regulations pre-
I'd BY the commission. If interstate
aerce, they are controlled by the laws
nsress, and the commission rates do
ppy And this must be determined
wording of the application for cars
Dill Of lading taken out by the
lave given this question serious
~ because l regard it of vital i'm
aee, the determination of which must
strengthen or ultimately destroy
Y heluness of the railroad commission
ass and OF all other States. And at
careful review of the authorities on
No|ect have no Hesitation in saying
suen snis exact question shall have
uaAaered by our supreme court, the
sol must be that shipments so mado
S4e and no. Interstate commerce,
ssslelore the freight rates prescribed
vommission must apply to all such
sas one of the ablest railroad
Iexas has referred me to the
w name1 cases. decided by our own
upon which he relies 10 sustain the
Il q me railway companies in opposi-
the conclusions we have reached.
~ y Ine State VS.. Railway Com
= 2. W. Rep. 542; the State VS..
company. A. s. w. Rep, esq:
N " Urect Navigation Company VS..
n w company, so Texas Rep, 40.
~ y ~ Two cases were decided by the
Z WI appeals. but never taken to
Z. s sue court for final adjudication by
u s.. ., last resort. and II they are
me construction placed upon
Ln spie railroad lawyers. / am forced
issue with them and the court that
~ the opinions. 49, ~
~ OF the Houston Direct Nayiea-
" vs. Insurance Company.
s.srred to, In my Judgment fully
~ views We express. and is not
- y sustain the position taken by
- y companies. nor the said opin-
~ court, OF civil appeals If they
d sp''o'e OF the construction given
~. analyze the opinions in these
n MI, iet me lay down a few legal
"A As ana cite authorities to sus-
~ non carriers are required 10 exc
NJ ueilver to shippers bills Of lad
~ goods they shin and to deliver
~ IA u 'ne consignee at the destina-
l5t ,s.n g the bill of lading, and a re-
~ sae such bill OF lading when
n aug 70 SO carry and deliver the
uestination named In the bill
snoJects the carrier to heavy
~ y, Arts. 1872 and 1906
W. ~. us OF iadtng are both receipts
" y. MA s AS an acknowledgment Of
VI Ky. ana acceptance of the goods
\, M. they are receipts. and as to
aud VI ,herein contained they are
,icr hutchinson on Carriers. See.
,;sp, however. in the recital or
INV s,Ient OF the receipt of the goods
N Mr quantity and condition when
ns s OF lading are strictly WIT
sS,s between the parties and
" ~ me general rule which pro-
NV production of parol evidence
s. ~ OF vary such contracts. go.
y = saing is the final repository
n.s. of the agreement be-
p, parties" (see Hutchinson on
q ~ l2s and l2sa and authors
notes and %
~ lssa liability OF the carrier can
.. asd so as to compel the deliy-
S00as at point beyond that
! ~ PHI Of iading, neither can
J. NJ NE shipper be enlarged so