The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-03-23
AN IMPORTANT QUESTION
Pfopounded by the District Attorney
Of Travis County.
IT AFFECTS THE ANTITRUST SUIT
Brought by Him Against the Kirby lun'-
Der Company--Attorney General Bell
Served With a Writ,

Austin, Texas, March - The snti
tIust case against the Kirby Lumber com
pAny assumed rev tuin today by the
hins Of a motion on the part Of the dis
trict attorney. which calls upon Judge
Mcris. the trial judge, to determine
whether or not tie suit was properly
brought without the concurrence If the
attorney general
should the court decide that the attorney
general Is necessary party and suouid
- fall to appear then the ctsc Will be
dismissed at once
However 1t looks very much as Il It
1879 falls TO Incorporate the provision that
all antitrust suits must be sled Ia IRA
Wis county, and under the Illinois decision
the act OF 1880 is made cumulative Vhica
necessarily destroys the msiu pOrtisn of
the act Of 1899. This is about the view
which Is assumed by the district attorney.
The motion filed this morning is az fol-
lows:
state of Texas VS.. Kirby Lumber Com.
pany; Now comes the state and repre-
sentS to the court that the above cause
Is suit against the Kirby Lumber COM
pany, private corporation duly Incorporate
uals for penalties incurred by virtue Of
violation of the antitrust act OF 1913 chat
went into effect January 81. 1900. Above
suit was brought by the district attorney
OF the Twenty sixth and Fifty third judi
Clal districts Of Texas, without the con-
sent aud concurrence of the Hon. c. IA
Bell, the attorney general of Texas. 10
prepare this suit upon the facts VIII cause
much labor and expense IL is there ore
desirable to have decided whether "a d
district attorney has the power TO bring
said suit as against said corporation b.
torc preparing said suit upon the facts.
Believing that said suit 50 far as same IS
against said corporation, may be an action
in the court to prevent a private corpora
"a d.
law, IL IS moved that the court decide
whether said suit Is, so far rs ID affects
said corporation, one that may be brought
10y said district attorney or could only De
brought by the said attorney general under
section Y, article - or 10y the said district
attorney in connection with the attorney
general. II Is further moved that If your
honor should decide that said suit could
not be brought by the said district attor.
ney without the consent and concurrence
Of the said attorney general, hut cou'd onlN
hc brought by thc attorney general with
his consent and concurrence, that the court
take such action MS 1t deems proper In the
premises and notify tAe attorney general
of its decision If it should affect his poWef,
rights, privileges and jurisdiction under the
laws and constitution OF the state,
Regarding the above suit nlstrici Attor
ney Moore gave out the following state
| ment: -
"a motion Aled today by me- in the
| Kirby Lumber company ct al antitrust
case raiseS no questions which were not
| mooted ones before the decision of the
| United States supreme court in the CON
unny case. The question VI the respective
/ rights Of the district attorney and the at
/ torney general under section ., articles 81
| and - Of the constitution Of Texas have
| been in more or less doubt for years ana
| this motion is intended to clear the atmos'
| phere with reference to this case of any
| doubt In this point This suit Is against
| The corporation and the individuals VINO
formed the corporation and this motion
simply gets decision upon the question
Of whether the district attorney has The
right TO proceed against n corporation for
penalties independently ~ the attorney
| general or whether he must have the at
| tOrney generals concurrence
District Judge Morris placed nm order
on his docket to the effect that copy of
the motion be served ON the attorney gen
ernl that he may appear and assert hi,
right to control the case II he so desires
Attorney General Bell WAS served with
n copy Of the motion and when asked about
It by Tho Post correspondent he said that
he was not going to cross the bridge until
he reached IT.
He stated that he did not bring this suit
and that it was not his case.