The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-03-07
BEFORE SUPREME COURT
Petition to Mandamus Secretary of
State John G. Tod
COMPEL HIM TO CHARTER A COMPANY
The Sheldon Canal Company Refused a
Charter on the Grounds that II Is
For More Than One Purpose

The rapid development Of the rice indus
try in Texas, the growth of the cereal. the
purchase and preparation of lands for its
production, the building OF canals, pump.
ing stations, laierals. etc. for the irfiga.
tlon Of lands TO be put In rice arc causing
the eyes Of tho world 10 be turned toward
the Lone star state. Especially arc thesa
eyes turned to that portion Of the State
in which the hundreds Of thousands Of
acres of prairie lands, heretofore consid.
cred almost worthless except for pasture,
have proven to be the most valuable ana
hest rice lands in the South and have in
creased In value manifold, on account
n their special adoptabIlity to the produc-
tlon Of this staple cereal. In the develop
ment Of these lands and this industry
many companies and corporations are being
formed and chartered.
In the charterlng OF these companies the
people are vitality interested and every
question which arises Is watched with in
tercsi owing to the immense proportions
the rico industry has assumed In SO short
time. a question in the charterlng OF
companies for the development of the rice
growing industry and the getting of water
TO ne luuNs ~ ht bldHA''l III AA'N ~ ''iN
building Of canals latcrals, etc, having
arisen In this county, and being now before
the supreme court Of the State in the shape
Of sVt to maudamus the secretary of
state, Is exciting much comment and Is
being watched closely, inasmuch as the
interests Of many companies are involved
In the decision Of the cnse. Several com
panies which have been chartered were
DESTROYS Of chartering for the purpose OF
growing selling and purchasing rice aui
10 purchase and lease lands for that pur-
pose, and TO construct, maintain aud OPP
crate dams, reservoirs canals, laterals,
etc for the purpose of irrlgatlng said ric',
but under the ruling Of the attorney gen
cral were compelled TO accept charler Tor
one purpose ouly .-,.
Mr. l.. h Moody, an attorney Of this
city was the first and ouly one to raise u
lcgal objection TO the ruling Of tho attorney
general MIR. Moody, rs attorney for the
sheldon Canal COMPANY. composed or T.
Miller John, David md Robert j. Barr
all extensive rice growers In louisiana
who have come 10 this county with the
intention Of going into the business even
moro extensively than they have ever Gu
gagged In IT In Louisiana. drew up tue
charter and sent Ii 10 the secretary OF
state TO have 1t dcd The second para
graph OF the proposed charter provides
that The purpo'e for which this corpora
I
teuance and operation OF dams, reservoirs,
lakes, wells, canals. fumes, laterals aud
other necessary appurtrnances for the pur-
pose Of irrigation and milling. aud for tue
purpose OF growing, selling aud purchasing
OF rice ana other agricultural products, ana
70 purchase and lease all lands necessary
for that purpose.
Mr. George r Keeble chief clerk under
Secretary OF State Tod. replied. returning
the charter and fees with the information
mat under ruling Of this partmcnt
a mi nj of 1. "a fytfffFF ron.
oral a corporation can only he formed Tor
the purpose or purposes named In one sub
division Of article G42. one of the
purposes named in your rhurtrr must Of
. necessity he eliminated
On receipt Of this letter MIR. Moody at
once Drew up a petition Ia the supreme
court OF the state Of IeNHs making Hpplca-
ron for writ Of mandlmus against the
secretary Of STATE compelling him to file
line charter asked for
Mr.. Moody i'm his petition states the
MINES Of the petitioners aud their rpi.
dcnccs, hen after stating the facts Of
nus application for charter with the oh
i'rtS As stated above, the refusal of the
secretary Of state 10 grant said charter he
says that all Of the purposes set forth in
salq proposed charter are provided for and
dele a. of The Revised statutes of lS,i5,
and that said purposes arc SO cermanc to
eeach Other and 50 insrparabiy connected
ihat either ono n said purposes would hc
wholly - utterly useless and ~ no value
in the absence Of the other
The petition then claims thar the refusal
10 hle said charter Is uuwarrAntcd and con
trary 10 law. and asks thar the dcfcndanf.
John 6, Tod secretary Of state Ne man
damused. commanding him 10 receive and
file said charter,
The result Of this action has hcen watched
with great interest. aud tho tclcnhone mes
sage received yesterday by Mr.. T. r.
Moody from the clerk 81 the supreme court
announcing that the court had issued mn
order granting the PRAYER or the II tiflun
Tor hlng and requiring that II he flied and
a day fixed for the hearing or rne cnu,e
VAS received with great Joy, ms one Of the
rules Of the supreme court REQUIRES thar
the petition for a writ of mandamus shlII
he accompanied with motion that the pctl.
lion be hled and set for hearing with such
Written argument in behalf OF motion as
may he desired. II the court Is clearly Of
me opinion that the writ should not be
awarded the motion will be denied by an
order In open court. II the court Is nor OF
lhat opinion the petition win be hled aud
a day liked for the hearing The message
10 Mr., Moody was to ascertain when no
wished the petition set for hearing aud
showed that the court Is MOI OF the opinion
that the writ should not issue. MIR Moody
replied mat he wished the hearing set for
rs carry day AS possible and left the FIX
ing or the date with the clerk
rms ls the hrst time this matter has
come betore the supreme court or that the
ruhng or the attorney general regarding
lhe issuing or charters has been contested
and the outcome OF the suit for n writ OF
interest.