The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-05-22
broad Attorneys Had an Inning Before
the Railroad Commission.
bpoTEsr AGAINST A COMPULSORY ORDER
|. Made by Number of the Roads-Judge Free
nan Contended That the Roads Will Have to
Buy Devices at Monopoly Prices.

| crossings; a question Of division OF expensc
| VIII soon be settled. At Flatonia Lnling
ana san Antonio plans have been apnroycd
| for safety devices and conditions are tbe
| same on the branches. II materlul arrives
| the devices will be in operation within six.
| ty days.
| ten crossings no response.
The Galveston. Houston and Northern,
| seven crossings; the same remarks as given
by the Galveston, Harrisburg aud San An
| tonic being applicable regarding this road
| The Gulf, Beaumont and Kansas CITY
three crossings; favors lntcrlocjng devices
The Gulf Colorado and San1d Fe, sixty
| one crossings reported by the commission
and forty eight reported by General Man.
ager Nixon, who stated that he favored
first class safety devices and would be able
to put In the first crossing In sixty days
| and one each north thereafter. In some
| cases he favored nongrade crossings, and
| ntbed for time to consider those cases,
| there being nine In ALL which would cost in
| the neighborhood OF S4O0.0O0 and will take
them up next year.
Mr.. Nixon stated that when his road was
obliged to iuterlock that they would pro.
| coed at once with the work AT some cross
ings he intended to put in the cabin de
l vice, which would chiefly protect the main
lines. In reply to question from Commits
sicrer Mnvheld. Mr. Nixon stated that he
| could definitely state that h. could put in
six in six months
The Gulf, west Texas and Pacific, two
crossings, both being in yards, question
asked to 60 over, with the exception ot
the Victoria crossing which would he pro
| tected by a safety device, the one az bee
vile being in doubt
The Heerne and Brazos Valley, Que cross
Houston East aud West Texas. six cross
ngs Plans are under consideration 90 IN
troduce the cabin system for most cross
ings except in houston. whore hrst class
interlocklng devices are to be, Installed
| Houston. Oak Lawn and Magnolia l,arh
Ave crossings. Vice President rrice Of the
International and Great Northern raiWond
responded. saying that the cabin system
Houston and Texas Central. thirty seven
crossings, Favored interlockinE systems
and on the main line hrst- class devices, SIX
being under consideration AZ present, Re
garding the commission putting In force
an immediate order, Mr. kellogg asked them
to consider the main line north Of Houston
first He stated that he could put IN SIX
crossings within a year and desired mat
the commission designate the crossings
International and Great Northern. TWEEN
ty-nine crossings Favored hrst.class SAFETY
devices at important crossings and the
cabin system Mt crossings not considered
important. Mr.. Trlce said that six cross
ings every twelve months was the best he
could do in installing them, ms each cross
Ing was counted twice by each line.
Missouri. Kansas and Texas, hfty-G one
/ crossings Mr. Maxwell said he favored the
best of interlocklng devices and had agreed
to agree with his neghbors. He did not
know how many he could PIT in In year,
as the question of getting material was Sc
New York Texas and Mexican. two cross
ings. Will install safety devices.
Orange and Northwestern two crossings.
| Wanted the commission 10 designate the
character of device.
Paris and Great Northern, two crossings
in Paris Favored sufety devices.
Rio Grapde and Eagle Pass one crossing.
no resuonsp.
san Antonio and Arkansas Pass, twenty
crossings. On important lines favored nts,.
. | cIo httt nj lines lose impprtVut
= the cheapest devices,
Cotton Belt thlrtv-one crossings h0s
made no definite arrangements as to ny
staling interlocMng devices and on unlm-
i | portnpt crossings favored gates, hut wan cd
line to put in hrst-class intcrlocknG devHs
aud considered the cabin system no device
! st. Louis. San Francisco and Texas, one
crossing at sherman. Would do anything
Agreeable to the Cotton Belt for the main
: Texarkana and Fort Smith, seven cross
ings Contract let 10 put In inter'ockine
, devices at four OF them ,.oss,,os M
/ Texas Midland, niue crossings Ready 70
= put in anything In the way OF safety ue'
vices the commission desires.
Texas and New Orleans. twenty va
crossings. Plans are being perfected Tor
interlocklng plants at important crossings
I but as to other places the question has moi
+ been finally determined
FREEMAN OFFERED
STRONG OBJECTIONS.
Texas and Pacific. twenty seven cross
: ings. Judge Freeman wanted 10 know
> what was the object of the commission IL
calling the roll OF rodds. Judge Storey an
swered that he wanted information rs tC
the length of time required by the railroads
e to comply with the law.
;, Judge Freeman objected to the commits
/. sIon's action, saying that these interlocklhf
!. affairs were in the hands Of cold FLOODED
n generations who would rob the railroads OF
d business principles and just now when ma
4 terial Is high the device would cost nlOi'
and he more expensive to the railroads lnui
n anything else, while on the other mana W.
!, same money expended in an9the ,1ani m
IS would be more favorable TO the people', 4!
h vvauted from seven to ten years unit =
install devices so bids could DC o .p',S,..bs,
{ and only very important CROSSINGS
l. within the next few years. -, ,,,,,,,,,
Il Texas Central. three crossings ! hlui ~ ~"
tent and gates could be used II other me
+. were satisfied. 49,, r,,a,o Per
8 kins addressed the commission on tue Sue
q iert saying that his line WAS AZ Pt'S,Ii
2 under great expense In improving me tLn,s
. increasing rolling stock. buying nlg cl,S'ns
Ia etc while the safety devices woule va
!. them $4,000 annually. and nc desired ON
- A few to be Installed year ana tuosV
Jndee Stedman agreed with Freeman a
&c 10 one or two lnterlocklng corporations ha'
$ ing a monopoly and asked the coinlhl,ss.iY
10 suspend Its proposed order II the lutf
s. locking companies raised the present pI'v
Is on their devices. He wanted the llhportin w.,
d crossings protected. hut at the same W.
he desired protection on behalf OF tht -. y.,n
:; mission from the interviewing coIpoI5,tlJi
Judge Terry Of the Santa re staten w,
:. he favored safety devices and the luestlo
II OF a monopoly did not bother MIN, az
safety device prevented the loss Of ~
g. | ana damage suits and a better inYeetmti
~ | could NOT he made by the roads tnan 70 y
in | stall interlorkers He hoped the piu,
= ! would not he put on nor the lenslh OF ''m
I, extended In which safety devices DC -
= | uulred to be PUT in. 90 =
!, Mr.. Trice said that he wanted 10 60
!, record as favorinG the gate system, 90 :
lu considered N as safe as any interiocA'H
2. plant besides they we're less eXpenSlEs.
NJ AS 10 the division Of expense, Iuust 80 ~
AZ man argued that the new company DEN :,
g expense Of the interlocklng pant anu ~" nv,
or companies share equally In IT'S malntehan,
Judge Perkins eontended thar the t""'
receiving the greatest benefit from lhe
terlockine device should bear the gIfA'st
proportion Of expense attached thcfeto. =,
u also questioned the eonstitulionaity oil .
" law. A.
q. Judge Miller said the idea OF the ne, ~ M
= having the superiority was nlo :,
- shinen and that the commission mao nst =
on right 10 make provision for the future y
~ penses Of safety devices. as potn ~
~ I A.. hOth were Den