The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-03-25
THE VETOED NJ, K. & 7. BILL,
SENATE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS
THAT III he PASSED.
Goes at Length Into the Reasons II
Deems Sufficient for Overriding
the Governors Action.


the Governors Action.
Austin, Texas March 81 The following
is the text of the report of the senate
| committee on internal improvements rec
ommending the passage OF the Katy con-
solidation bill over the governors Veto
| Your committee on internal improve
monts. to whom was referred the executive
message returning senate bill No. i5i,
without approval. make the following re-
pert:
| The message re-commits the bill to the
senate for further consideration upon the
| sole proposition that the case of the state
| of Texas VS.. the East Line and Red River
| Railroad company. Is Texas, 1872, i52, rs "A
| controlling authority in support OF the
proposition that the Missouri, Kansas ana
| Texas railway OF Texas and the sherman,
| Shreveport and Southern railway are COM
| petng lines, and that the purchase or lease
| by the Missouri Kansas and Texas Rail-
| way company of Texas OF the railroad
| OF the sherman, Shreveport and Southern
| Railway company is therefore forbidden by
| section g. article 10 of the constitution OF
the State of Texas.
After an exhaustive and painstaking con-
| that the case does not support the propo-
sition tbst the railroads mentioned in the
| bill are at the present time competing
| within the meaning of the constitutional
prohibition. The Missouri, Kansas and
Texas Railway company of Texas Is the
owner of its present lines of railroad
through purchase from the Missouri, Kan
sas and Texas Railway company under
| the special act of the legislature OF the
State OF Texas OF April is, 1891.
The Missouri, Kansas and Texas Rail-
way company of Texas was Incorporated on
August 26, 1891, and as its articles of In
corporation show, among other things, TOR
the purpose of acquiring, owning. main
tanning and operating the railroads au-
thorized by the said special act of April
l6, 1891 to be sold.
The old East Line and Red River Rail
road company was chartered on the 22nd
day of March 1871, and on the LIST day of
June, 1880. II executed a mortgage TO Sc
cure the outstanding bonds to the Fidelity
Trust and Insurance company of Philadel-
phia Afterwards, on the Goth day of No
vember 1881, 1t sold and conveyed its rail-
road 10 the Missouri, Kansas and Texas
Railroad company. Afterwards, on the -
day of September, 1888 the suit OF the
state OF Texas VS.. the East Line and Red
River Railroad company was instituted to
forfeit the charter of the company and
forfeiture was decreed, After the Anal de-
cree of forfeiture the Fidelity Trust and
insurance company Oh iniiaueiPn'a lh'.'
Eehea III inc FORFEITURE SUI alii oo'al"eu q y
decree OF foreclosure OF its mortgage ana
| under its decree the East Line and Red
| River railroad was sold and Henry w.
Poor became the purchaser thereof. Sub
sequently, on the End day of February
1870 tne sherman, shreNeport anu oou ~
ern haiiway company was elen.eu iop ane
purpose, among ONE nn,nss, y. p ,a aIi
ing from the saio henry W. TOO, tne Ia,'-
ROADS formerly NnoWn az tne s.ast l .ln,
anu heu river ~, Wy go 80.
Mchihhsy' IN Noi'in Sounty' " ,,. 80
. IN Marion county anu sitsr lts ,huorpo i
tlon, the said nehry W. rool oesueu Wy
SAID inc OF ra'iroau 10 ,ne ,, sherman ,',
: shreveport anu oouthei, nai'""s o
a panS; NI,.n.' 'ne - ~ ~,
e and Texas Railway company OF IeHas mo-
the sherman shreveport auo soutisi :
i Railway company were IN existence UNI
long atter the decree OF FORFEITURE Neitnel
the Mlssourl Kansas ana aeAas haiwh'
/, company nor the Fidelity trust ana IN
surance company were parnes TO the LOT
felture suit. IL is evident tnat the deere
OF forfeiture Is not res auJldlcala upoi
either the Missouri, Kansas and Texa
Railway company OF Texas or the sherman
Shreveport and Southern Railway com
pany, for the title of these companies L
the respective railroads are derived
n through parties who are not In any wa
. concluded by that forfeiture suit. TIL
: suit sought forfeiture upon eight dis
tiuct grounds. which are set forth in tn
first part of the opinion of the court. TIL
I supreme court in its oponion says
The Judgment of the court below IL
: based upon the proposition; dst) that
4 the attempted sale of the railroad was
d unlawful. and that since it's date the
resnondent has failed TO exercise the
franchise conferred upon il by It's
charter. (2nd) that the condition OF it's