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

citizen outside Of this State was 4 partv
70 the new contract as In the former case.
II was bill OF lading given at Panhandle
by the Southern Kansas Railway COMPANY
TO the Miami merchant for the shipment q,
coal from Panhandle, Texas 10 Miami
Texas. The contract being that. the coal
should be delivered by the Panhandle
merchant I. 0, b. at Panhandle, the con,
sisnee TO pay the freight from PanhandTc
70 Miami And the court held that this
was an interstate shipment from the tima
II loft the coal mines in Colorado until ii
reached the last prr,ed destination AZ
Miami, Texas.
In my Judgment, II these opinions ar.
subject TO the construction claimed and
are to stand unchallenged, there is no
such thing AS an Interstate shipment hy a
Wholesale merchant IN Texas. All OF
their. goods are shipped into Texas from
Outside points, and when a carload is 70.
shipped by them to some customer nj
some other point In the State 1t is still
interstate and not interstate commerce.
And so also II these cases are TO stand
as the settled law, all shipments OF cot
ton. lumber, corn and oats. shipped from
fexas points to Galveston on local Bills
OF lading. and redelivered to the shipper
at that port and by him reshipped TO som,
other state or foreign country must nee
essarily be held to be Interstate com.
merce from point OF origin and not sub
lect to the laws of Texas. leaving very
small fraction of the commerce OF this
state subject to the laws of this state,
and her jurisdiction Is defeated and that,
TOO, by violation OF the laws OF evi (.
qence forbid6ing the Introduction of parol
evidence to contradict, vary and control
written contracts.
IN this connection 1t is gratifying to
this commission TO learn that the ner-
chants at Miami. in the coal shipping
case. sued the railway company for the
penalties prescribed by our law for ex-
tortion and recovered judgment. and the
case was appealed to the court OF civil
appeals at Fort Worth, where the judg-
ment was affirmed in an oral opinion, that
court having substantially held the same
views as in former written opinion re-
ported in the case OF Railway Company
VS.. sherwood Thompson Company tS4 Tex
as, p. 1850.
The same views are held by the inter-
state commerce commission IN case
reported in volume l. page 80, of its re-
ports and In volume 2 page 142. OF its
reports, when that commission was COM
p aed of such distinguished jurists as
Thomas NJ. Cooley. William K. Morrison
and others.
In the case of Stevens VS.. The State of
Ohio (s3 Fed. Rep. p. 19S-797). it WAS
held that shipment of keg OF beer
from brewery in Virginia to it's agent
in an Ohio local option district. and there
taken charge of by the agent OF the Vir
ginia brewery and conveyed by cart to
the purchaser. was sale of liquor in the
prohibition district. because the inter-
state shipment ceased when the keg
reached the depot station to which the
bill OF ladlng consigned 1t. to the agent
OK the brewing Company, and that the
transfer by the agent TO the purchaser
was no part OF the interstate shipment,
and therefore was violation of the Ohio
law on the subject.
s. A shipper has the right to determine
for himself when and at what point his
shipment, shall start on its voyage to an
other Stata or foreign port, and 10 demand
and receive a strictly local bill OF lading
from one station in Texas to anotheT. as
Stunning all the cost justly chargeaole to
him in such cases. even though he con-
templates ultimately to ship the goods
out of the State from the destination
named in the local bill of, lading received
or demanded by him. iaoroT
1t is, we'll known thattin carload ship
ments the loading and unloading OF the
car is done at the cost Of the shipper, and
this extra unloading and reloading at this
local destination in Texas he has the
right to tax himself within his effort to
secure. in the long run, any real or
ina ginary benefits to be derived from such
course of business.
am aware that the case of Cutting vs..
Flor da GAG Fed Rep, p. CAD and the
Coe VS.. Enrol GIG U s. Rep. SID, and
other cases which say in substance that
when a shipment starts on its outbound
voyage it is interstate from starting point
to destination But we think careful
reading of all such cases Will show IN
every case that there was no strictly local
bill issued or demanded. For instance,
in the orange shipment case Tin IL Fed.
Rep 641) it was made clear / think, by
the local bill of lading that there was
to be no unloading OF the car OF oranges
at Callahan. Florida. but the car Itself
was to be switched TO it's connections and
proceed TN its outward journey under Il
new billing, or. in other words, the snip
per sought the benefits OF the local rates
without assuming the extra cost OF I'M
loading and reloading, and at the same
time claimed the extra switching and use
of the through car over the local ROAD s
connections to market outside OF the state
Of Florida. and this, think, Is shown BY
the bin of fading just as the outbound
shipment was shown In the bill of ladins
in the case referred to In the S9th Texas
Report; and this we think, Is a sample
OF the cases generally referred to to sus-
tain the views we are combating. Inc
case of Daniel Ball 10 Wall, p. 56i) was
libel case, the question was not whether
any particular shipment was interstate
or not. but whether or not the boat was
engaged in interstate transportation, re-
qulrng license, Notwithstanding the fact
it piled only between points within the
State OF Michigan. There was no dis
pute about the fact that it frequently
transported goods brought TO and coming
from other States. In fact. this was ad
mitted aud the court said that when a
commodity has begun to move as an ar
tIcle OF trade from one State to another,
commerce In that commodity between the
States has commenced There was moth
ing In the case indicating when, in the
opinion of the court shipment should D.
he'd to have started GU its outbound ana
continuous voyage There was no dispute
In that case about local billing, or at
what point the movement from one state
to the other begun. SO, In my Judgment
that case can not be cited to sustain the
construction placed by railway companie J
on the two cases decided by our court OF
civil appeals, hereinbefore discussed
Nor is the opinion In the case Of Goa
vs.. Enrol u16 u. s.. Rep. p. olO authority
to sustain our court of civil appeals Thai
was case of taxation OF logs in New
Hampshire, fioated down to but not load
ed on railroad fer shipment TO another