The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-01-24


=, =, inc Fifty.tbird district court handed
81 sarn an opinion this morning in the case
" !, inc State of Texas vs.. the shippers
"a connress and Warehouse Company of Dal-
IA i. sndlug for the defendant. The opin.
n ion is as follows:
N /, This case the state of Texas, by its
"a .ttarney general, sues the defendants cor
n sorstion to forfeit It's charler, aud for
y sase Of action alleges HAT seven persons,
N ,rbass names are stated In the petition,
Ia .,tered into combination of capital for
III ,he purpose Of preventing competition he
"A ,Wsen cotton congresses, Whlch were aids
n 10 commerce, and Tor the purpose OF re-
n Stncting such aids TO commerce; that said
II nersons In pursuance OF their unlawful
"A Combination, executed articles of incol
n noratlon aud MED the same In the ofhJe
n n the secretary of stale, In due form OF
law expressing the lawful purpose Of CrCct.
n ing and buying cotton congresses, among
,fRer lines of business mentioned Ia the
81 .barter: that while the defendant coipur-
Y ,tou was granted power to buy onpr"ssps
n within this state, IL was not cmpOWVrt Il
n "a acquire, but was expressly prohibited
n lr the laws Of this state (which luDs were
i mart Of the charter of said corporniiOmi
y IRON acquiring congresses for the purp, SO
" restricting such aids to commerce or pre-
venting competition between CompresScs;
A md that in pursuance Of the illegal toA-
n iract agreement and confederation Of those
4 sho brought II into existence, 'hc de-
endant corporation proceeded 70 buy NJ
4 and acquire all the corporate prop Tty of
n certain competing congresses for the pur.
pose and that the action OF the defendant
IN acquiring the same had the effect of
reating and carrying out restrictions IN
trade and commerce. and OF prev, nting
i sompetitlon. the details Of which are set
mt at length in the petition.
The defendant corporation answers. and
hfst urges number OF objections TO the
eonsti,udonallty Of the law under which
the attorney general is proceeding.
II is conceded by both parties that neither
The antitrust act Of 1889 nor the ether
wise very comprehensive act of 1899 an
ply TO the case, because neither Has refer
ence TO aids TO commerce such AZ cotton
compresSes arc. and that the act Of Anil |
|9 1875, is the only antitrust statute APP
plcable to the ease.
]. The defendant FIRST assails The con.
|Nltntionality Of the law because L eN-
empts from us operation live stock and
agricultural products while in the hands
|o the raiser or producer, and the ureaaisu-
|uon Of laborers for the purpose OF main B
ialning standard Of wages. This ubjec. /
ilon Is not tenable. II law applies equally |
|lo all the class 10 which 1t relates. and lis !
limited application is reasonable and rot
merely capricous and arbitrary. .her, can
pe 20 vaud constitutional objection TO IL .
because 1t Is limited in It's application to
"a certain class Of persons. 4 large nnr
osnlon are collected In the opinions OF !
courts courts Of appeals in the following cases.
Maers.Pierce oil Company VS.. State ID !
i lex, S Wv. app l.; American Sugar Rein.
w company rs. Louisiana, lTg l.. S. 50.
Tenn., rs 'P'"S' Iva
= The defendant next contends that tho
su restricts the right TO contract ard 10
~ az" - wv" h. one properly 10 such an extent
y 70 0rlng II in conflict with the cnnsti
. .s..i guarantees Of personal liberty Of
W.. .sasl toilus, and deprlves the owners Of
ln .uiF % a part Of the value thereof nv
hhosoa o. Inc limitations as to the use
py'eol imposed by the act.
~ qua OF the opinion that reasona|o
b bils't IVY OF the act of 1895 removes |
~. oo!eclloh n is true the suprcul- | ,
IS NV III ms state has held that II rem ,
oiora uT rs,"rI contracts which were here
iaue and. therefore, not ile~ni ,inaot
~ non law; Houck & Dieter vs. Brew.
- = association. 81 Tex, 1SI. Teygs MIA
"a m Sua' company rs. Lawson. 50 Tex. ,
r n,i took Ike view of rho Led"r,j :
nuIust law. United States v Frniebt
,a,SSYvtiauon, 1855 L. s., 80. But il Vas :
tstss tee supreme court Of the l-nlteI T
saso5,bla' lne statute must receive t
,sre aotS construction and what was n
III Sain WIN reference to that stotntn .
A., appH with equal force TO fho Tc,og
..The' That court said:
n ha inli,"u interstate commerce must 4 4
sree M ,na aI or Incidental only. An >
-ometinr , ,b INTO for the purpose Of
,Ssroh or corporation with no pnrposn 4
mneroo Hle'l or restrain Interstate u
rain b,'s sro, and which does not directly re-. 4
rercd bV. e1nmercc. Is not as We think. D
emf r ~ ne act, although tho urrcc u
st co may Indirectly and remotely aIlroct Il
sSe &c court referring to another case do. |
w Dy 1t further said: e"se "'' +
50 ab ESQ repeat what was said I'm tho II
y, oSoye cited hat tho act Of cono,. ,ns
i tb proe q reasonable construction, or $
contraa, would scarcely be an agreement h
he ala among business men lhat could p,
-@.u 70 nave Indirectly or remotely Is