The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-04-17
|TfLAW or 1922 STILL HOL- DIS
IA Court of Civil Appeals Has Handed
Down Another Opinion.
FEARING ASKED BY THE STATE REFUSED
ter Is Now to Be Taken to the Supreme Court bv
the Attorney General-Decision is in the
Shippers Compress Case.

that "the foregoing sections and tho Mains
ana penalties for a Violation of tht r"a. ,,
hNl Ne held and construed to he rnn,nio,
i've OF all laws now in iorce in this stein
me purpose Of this section %. the inv vns
n"Ne az laws upon tine subject OF
tius'S, combinations aud mOnOpu1cs ru.
initiative Of the act Of lsUn that were nor
III coiluict OF Inconsistent with some Of the
terms ui TINT law. 1uis law Rent nttve
an laws that were cumulative. ii mad
leIeIrhcc To laws that were in force and
existing within the State of Texas upon
that subject. NP
whatever might have been the ievlsla.
i've intent. Il is clear that the effrcr Of
ms act would not be to give vitality and
force to an act Of the lpgisln ,ure fhat A. -
unconstitutional and therefore voli. In
using the expression "cumulntivp of Al
laws, II had reference to laws that could
We enforccd-laws that We're yalld-laws
that were nOt void because they were i'm iii.
I'ct conflict with some provision of the
tate constitution or thai ut the United
iNtes. An unconstitutional act is not a
, HIM, IL confers no right It imposes no
no Office. 1t is In legal contemplation AS
imperative u though Il had never been
pasSed Nooley's Const Lam 10Th Eli.
~; Norton vs.. Shelby County lis l.. s..
If this is correct statement Of the nrlncl-
PIE ana the effect TO he given to an IN.
constitutional act. then It follows IT., m
we erect OF the recent decision Of the
nlted States supreme count c.trl In tlp
original opin. on. that when the act NJ rs "a
was passed, creating, defining and uuuIsh.
ing trusts. Illegal combinations and nouup.
ones there was not then in existence any
wand law upon the subject Of trusts with
which the aci Of 1899 could he cumuInri,.a.
l. he retore IT must follow that the ohiec-
tlonable features Of the acts OF 1854 ana
iso'' which are fatal TO their existence,
can not be Kept alive aud considered rs a
part OF the laws OF lSlH. The latter stands
alone without the aid OF the su-callcd ire
Nlous laws, and when thus considered II is
complete with no exceptions on reservations
III favor Of certain classes that affect as
conStitutionality.
II is coutcnded in he motion for rohoar.
ing that though the act of 1888 may he
uiC,oiStliutlonal. 1t. provisions We, dc
cepted as part Of the contract under
which the charter Of Incorporation was
granted, and that a violation of fits term.
Would authorize the right 10 forfeit on
cancel the charter Notwithstanding tine law
could not be enforced In an action FOR pen.
allies. There Is nothing upon the face III
the charter by which the nar'ics ayr e ia
abstain from any Of the acts SET up i'm tho
plalntlHs petition. nor Is there ANYTHING
IN the terms Of the charter which author.
ICES cancellation or forfeiture on the ground
or the NiaatiOn 0f a contract.
II is clear that when the charter was
granted ne corporation was nmenrble "a
all laws that related to or affected Il in
the performance nf its business duties aud
obligations These laws were not sub.
scrlhed Ia as a part of the contract. but
they were and should he applied only as
genera laws relating to the subject that
they dealt with. There was no agreement
mat the corporation would he bound b.; 4
void or unconstitutional law. But tn i'm.
pied obligation rested upon the corporation
10 observe ana obey all valid laws thar re.
lated to II or governed its conduct n tlo
laws that are sought 10 he applied to cor.
porations were unconstitutional aui here.
fore, mere utilities, We can not appreciate
the force of any reasoning thai UOUld seek
Ia subject them To It's terms pains and
penalties. when others, who are brought
within the terms Of the law. would he re.
lioVed from It's operation on account or It's
uncouStitutiouality. Tho states case l.,
predicatcd upon The idea that the defeuda
vi"'Hted certain portions OK section J of he
antitrust act Of 1922 II Is tho conduct
Condemned by this part of the laN tn q Is
the foundation and the basis OF the plain
tins ease. The plaiutif must look to m S
law. otherwise Its ease must fail Tlu
forfeiture Is sought on the ground that the
corporation undertook to create and Carrt
out restrictions in trade and commerce or
aids to commerce. and 10 prevent conn
tition In aids to commerce. There Is moth,
ing In the contract of charter upon th
subject; and. as said before an that rclrtr-
n II Is found In the ACT Of 1898. II II were
not FOR this statute Paintir. ON The
grounds alleged. would have no Causn ut
action and II Is the law that must he
looked to In determining whether tho rem
edy exists. IT the law Is unconstitutional
1t is unconstitutional for all purposes: and
as said IN the case Of Norton vs. She y
could he based upon IT,
All expressions I'm the original opinion
concerning the unconstitutionality Of tho
laws of 500 are Withdrawn. and the effect
of this act Is not passed upon
Motion for rehearing overrulcd.
Fisher Chief Justice,