The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-12-31
~ Constitutes Such Is Discussed by
Commissioner L. J. Storey.
]. = rHEpE MUST BE A CONTINUOUS PASSAGE
Y shipment Is Made to Texas Port on L0sa, s,, the Kali
'a, nal and Inter state Bills Of Ladng Discussed.

Syinor, % Texas 2bZi Conrad q Fable VS.
Hun g. Brook. 6s Texas 900. list. App. G,
AL, 1897
5. A shipper has the right to route his
shipment. and failure to observe his
routing renders the carrier liable for dam
ages tInman VS., St. L. ). w. Ry Co., Il
C. C! App. r. S. Art. 4496.)
Let me here state that there Is no law
requiring uniformity in interstate or for
eign freight rates, hence we have almost
n continual rate war between the various
transportation lines entering Texas and
this Is true on outgoing as well as incom :
Ing freights No man can say he knows
what the rates will be from Texas to st,
Louis, Chicago Baltimore. New York or
Liverpool six days ahead, as under the
acts Of congress any line can lower its
Interstate rates at any time by giving to
the interstate commerce commission three
DAYS notice, or raise the rate by giving
ten days notice, nor is any other line re-
uuir. to meet such change of rates If they
do not choose to do SO. Hence say there
is neither uniformity nor stability in in
terstate or foreign freight rates. And
again, on through shipment from Texas
to st. Louis, Chicago, New York or any
other point outside of Texas, where the
shipment has to pass over two or more
lines, no connecting line over which the
shipment passes can be compelled to ac-
cept division of the through rate less
than its local rate for the haul made by 1t,
unless 1t has contracted with the connect
ing line to do so; and therefore lay down
my sixth propositions:
6. AS no carrier, over whose line an In
terstate shipment is made, can be COM
PEELED. against its will, to accept less than
its local rates for the services rendered by
It, neither can shipper be COM
PEELED to accept through bill OF
lading instead OF local bill Of
lading to Galveston or other point
in Texas, and waive his right to there
take out o new bill to some other point,
say New Orleans. and there again reship
to New York, all by rail if he SO desires,
paying the legal rates for each shipment.
and no power on earth has the legal right
to prevent it., however expensive the lux
ury may prove to be.
One other proposition before I discuss
the merits of the three Texas cases here
inbefore referred to-:
z. A shipment becomes interstate COM
merce when it passes from the control of
the shipper into the hands of the carrier
for continuous voyage to it's destination
outside of the State and the best evidence
of the character of the shipment, and in fact
the only evidence which can not be denied,
added to or taken from, to show its char
acter is the unambguous bill of lading.
See authorities above cited.
The case of the Houston Direct Naviga
tion company VS.. Insurance company, SO
Texas, p. LILO, is case where cotton was
transported on a barge from Houston down
the bayou to Galveston. There part of
the cargo was delivered to the Mallory
line of steamships for transportation to
New York and Liverpool. Before all the
cotton was transferred from the barge to
the Mallory steamship fire broke out on
the barge and lot of the cotton was
burned The insurance company paid the
insurance and then sued the Houston d.
rect Navigation company for something
over $1,000 loss In the bill of lading was
clause that in case Of loss by fire the car
rier was not to be held liable for the loss,
and this clause was plead by the carrier
in defense In reply the insurance COM
pany plead that the shipment was a local
shipment and not interstate commerce,
and therefore the carrier could not limit
its liability by such a contract, as such
Limitation is prohibited by the laws of
Texas (R. S. Art. 320) The supreme
court held in that case that the cotton
was Interstate commerce from the time 1t
left Houston, but the distinguished iurist
who delivered the opinion also said that it
was shipped from Houston to Galveston
on local bill of lading. A careful read
ing Of that opinion and the bill of lading
quoted in the opinion does not in the
least contradict the position we have taken
in this paper.
The bill of lading as quoted says:
1t is understood and expressly stipu-
lated that the liability OF the Houston
Direct Navigation company shall cease
upon delivery to the next connecting
line and that the said Houston Direct
Navigation company and its connec-
tions, which receives and transports
the said property, shall not be liable
for loss by fire. > - The cotton
under this bill of lading is to be trans
ported to the depots or the landing Of
the steamboats, or forwarding lines at
tho points receipted to for delivery. 1t
is further agreed In case of any loss or
damage that company alone shall be
answePable therefor in whose actual
custody the same may be at the time
of the happening OF such loss. This
contract Is executed and accepted. and
the liability of the Houston Direct
Navigation company terminates on the
delivery of the cotton to the Mallory
line at Galveston, when the liability
OF such Mallory line commences and
not before
In constituting the bill OF lading the court
said, on page of the opinion:
The bill Of lading upon its face shows
that the Navigation company was to
deliver the cotton to the Mallory line
at Galveston at which time the LA
bility of the Navigation company
should cease and that Of the Mallory
line should attach. There can be no
doubt that the destination at the time
OF the delivery to the Navigation COM
parry was fixed and determined. and
the point to which it WAS destined for
final delivery was beyond the limits Of ,
this state. It was equally clear from
the bill OF lading and other testimony
that continuous voyage was contem-
plated and the trip between Houston
and Galveston WAS simply a part OF
the voyage. Upon this stats OF facts
the cotton would undoubtedly come
within the rule = and be ciassed
as interstate commerce.
II Is thus seen that the learned Judge
reached his conclusion by an inspection OF
the bill OF lading and not from any evil
dence to contradict or vary It's terms.
Now, let us examine the cases decided
by one of our courts of civil appeals. which
are cited and relied upon by those holding
contrary views to those We have an
nounced. 80
The flrst case is the State vs.. the Gulf,
rs<1o., A. .c4 cau<a "a pot1vvsw