The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-03-07
QUARANTINE LINE VOID.
Supreme Court Holds State Commits.
sion Ena clment 10 Be Invalid.
STREET RAIL WAY FRANCHISES TAXABLE
SO Held in the Case Appealed from
Dallas---AppIicstion for Writ Of
Mandamus Granted.

uN ENNEfIUF GVuNl answered Lne EcEfls
ned question in the case of the Fort Worth
and Denver City Railway Company VS. r
h. Masterson ct 81. In this case Masterson
purchased some cattle in Alabama to be
shipped TO Seymour, Texas. When they
reached Fort Worth the Fort Worth and
Denver refused TO haul them 10 Wichita
Falls on account of the cattle quarautins
line established by the live stock sanitary
commission. but at the same time the Fort
Worth and Denver did not traverse that
section OF the state In which the auaran-
tine was in force; IN fact. It did not cross
the quarantine line.
Masterson set up the plea that the Ma
tional quarantine line. which was further
west, was the proper quarantine line, In
stead of the line established by the live
stock sanitary commission of Texas, as its
line was several counties cast of the red
cral line.
The court holds that the line established
by the commission OF Texas not helng In
conformity with the line established hr
the Federal government, as quarantine
against Texas or splenCtlc fever, was with
out authority OF law aud void The court
further holds that the existence of the
quarantine line established by the SANITARY
commission of Texas Afforded no justinca
ton To the appellant for refusing 10 re-
ceiye and carry the cattle of the Nppelles
1--WE, however do not Intend TO intimate
that IL that line had been valid its eN-
istence would have excused the refusal 90
carry the cattle TO R point not within the
forbidden territory
The court also reversed the Judgment Of
the court Of civil appeals and affirmed
the Judgment Of the district court in the
case of the City of Dallas ct al VS.. Dallas
Consolidated Electric street Railway Com
pany. In this case the street railway
| company Instituted Injunction proceedings
| upn m oil Nf %
tax collector from collecting certain tax
imposed by the city on the roads iran
chise, At the trial OF tho case the inlunc,,
| tluu was dissolved, and judgment rendered
| in favor Of Dallas on plea IN reconvention.
! The opinion by Chief Justice Gaines saws;
The leading question in the case is lld
| the charter OF the city of Dallas author
| ize the assessment Of the franchise OF
! street railway company as separate item
/ In the rendition OF its property for tax
! atom Constituting our general laws In rel
( erence to the method of rendering the
property of railway companies Tor taxation
for Stntc purposes, we heid IN the ease or
/ Austin and Northwestern RAILWAY vs.. the
! State TINT the franchise Of railroad WIS
not asseSsable a separate distinct eully
from It's physical property. Bnt we nelMer
/ held that surh franchise was non nSsesSAhlc
nor that under the statutes then In qucE.
ton the value was not to lie estimated IN
determining the valuation OF the property
Of the company for the purpose OF taxation.
| Here we have different question. inc
| city Of Dallas Is Incorporated ny special
law and the question Is whether the char.
ter OF the city authorizes the tax upon the
companyS franchise anil its assessment as
separate item OF property"
The sections Of the charter are quoted
and the court holds that It AuthonIcS
tax upon the franchise Of street ran
The opinion concludes. "our opinion
upon this branch of the case Is thai th'
eity council had the power TO require Tho
franchise of a street railway company g
hn assessed separately from It's tangible
uvonprtv N is clear that
the ordinances which slmpiy i'm
pose the annual payment as
condition of the grant and those Whlci
call such payment a bonus do not lInpof
contract for exemption from taxation o
the franchises granted"
The motion 10 hle petition for man
ct nj w. Secretary Of State Tod. The pc
titioners are u. Miller, John aud Davle
G. Barr, all OF Harris county, and they
seek to compel the secretary OF state TO me
n charter with two purposes. The charter
i'm question Is the sheldon Canal company
FOR the purpose Of constructing, maintain
ing and operating dams, reservoirs, lakes
wells canals fumes, laterhlS ana "thel
necessary nUpurtcnances for the purpose
Of irrigation and milling, aud Tor inc pur
pose or growing, selling and purchasing o.
rice and othcr agricultural PRODUCES, ana "
purchase and lease all lands necessary 70
that purpose.
The secretary Of state contends that m
charter hns too many purposes, and ina
q corporation can have only one purpose
Tho petition states that H. IS iWposslbl
10 grow rice without the objects set fort
. in The charter