The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-11-10

nm the subject of railroad rates Such letters not to be
taken Tor expressions of The Posts opinion OF the matter
treated expressions of the opinion OF tue eoe
pondent that them. Based upon frequently heard
complaints of the railroad commissions distributing rates
they simply reflect the dissatisfaction which has become gen
eral owing the apparent mpossibiity OF successfully
meeting competition in Texas under existing es
tariffs
The Post can not honestly be accused of charging that
the railroad commission in league with the railroads
against Texas mills and merchants because one OF It's cor
respondents finds that the complaint now that undeT COM
mission authority gigantic transportation trust hourishes
in this State" 1t the Timesierad and not The Post
that asserted that the commission in league with the
railroads against Texas mills and merchants, uering
calumny the responsibility for which It now seeks to al
vide by dsjontng and msnterprens the writings OF
Post correspondent
The Post then goes on to say according the Times
Herald though The Post has said nothing and its CORE
spondent has merely made note OF complaint Ana the
Times Herald quoting just enough from that correspondent
to suit its purpose declares that The Post has given out
that no amount of contention the contrary can con-
vince the people that the commission is not guilty VI
course this The Posts language Neither is 1t taT
quotation correspondents language The three words
on the first count" which complete the sentence in the
original omitted by the Times Herald in separating 1t
from the text to unwarranted thereof This omis-
changes the sentence that it can be used IN con-
necon foreign to that in which it FIRST appeared
Further along the Times Herald quotes The Post as au-
horty for the statement that willing witness who could
thrown much light how Texas business confronted
from the outside the derment Of Texas enterprises was
hustled from stand in short order by the commission
when as of fact the incident recalled by The
Posts correspondent for nothing but to point out how
good opportunity make against the interstate lines
had neglected No assertion made that the wit
ness was hustled away by the commssion--hat being
piece of Times Herald fctiona the witness was excused
and dismissed in hurry by the parties introducing him
when that point reached where in his testimony, he
ceased to be valuable themhe point at which he began
telling made goods sold to the trade and
subsequently distributed.
Not satisfied with having without cause, sought to place
The Post in position it has occupied, the Times
Herald goes garbe the language of Post cor
respondent justify itself for doing This of itself is
sucient to convict dupcty and deprive of the right
of further say along this line
The Times Herald not Confuse the public MINI
in this by disappearing The Post and misquotne
its correspondents The Times Herald is opposed to the
commission straight and little what it says about
that department. just the saying is malicious The Pos
looks upon the commission necessity but does not con
slider the commissioners niabe great people are
of the same opinion The Post and expressing it
That The Post correspondent has repeated what they
saying signifies that The Post has adopted thu
Times-Heralds style of recessly denouncng commits
sioners or gone over the anti-commisson element
l. A. P.