6 . A FEDERAL REPORTER. ·
about 100 miles, all the traliic of the Missouri Pacino system in questio"1 herein
passes over the Texas do Pacific Railway, to the great advantage of the latter;
and that from Whitesboro to Fort Worth, a distance of 71 miles, the track is
owned by the Texas Ga Pacino Railway Company; and the agreement with the
Missouri Pacino system which took effect September 1, 1886, (dated August
—, 1886,) and marked herein Exhibit R C, contains provisionsadvantageous
to the Texas do Pacific Railway for sharing the business of that portion of the
latter’s line, which the petitioners never have offered, and cannot offer.
` The matter is submitted on petition and answer, and, although the
argument has extended over ya wide territory, I feel compelled to restrict
my examination ofthe case to the facts as admitted by the pleadings,
the answer being taken as true.
It will be noticed that the answer, while in terms denying all dis-
crimination against petitioners,goes fully into a statement of the pre-
vious and present relations, dependency, connections, and joint business
of the Texas & Pacific Railway with the Missouri Pacific Railway sys-
tem, and makes part of the answer the existing traffic contract with the
Missouri Pacific Railway Company and its leased and operated lines,
entered into after the petition was filed, but before it was served upon
the receivers. That contract covers division of rates, division of trafiic
and earnings, and joint track operation and expenses, and amounts to
what is known in railway parlanoe as a general pooling and trafnc ar-
rangement. Section 3 of article 2, division of trafhc and earnings of `
said contract, provides as follows: V
. "In consideration of the above divisions, and the further agreementrnutu-
  A ally made between the respective companies to work as heretofore, in so far
as they legally can, to the end of sending all the traffic they control over the
lines of the system of the other, to or from points reached by the respective
j systems, in preference to the roads of other companies not parties to this
agreement. and a further agreement on the part of each that they will not
, give other connecting lines equal rates and facilities as herein contained for
each, without such connecting lines shall pay an equal consideration therefor,
and a further agreement that the businessbetween local stations on the lines
of the parties hereto shall be routed in the same general manner as prior to
the receivership of the Texas du Pacino Railway, except as hereafter changed
by mutual agreement, or by the construction or control of either party hereto
, of new roads forming shorter routes, the parties hereto agree to divide as
hereinafter provided," etc. ‘°
It is contended by the petitioners that this contract of itself, but par-
ticularly in the light of the above—quoted provision, shows a preference
in rates, business, and facilities to do business on the part of the receivers
of the Texas & Pacino in favor of the Missouri Pacino system, and against
, all other connecting lines. This contention seems to be well founded.
A preference in rates and business in favor of one connecting line is a `
discrimination against other connecting lines. i
This contention is sought to be met with the propositions that the
contract is not unlawful ; that it operates to the benefit of the trust prop-
erty; that the present traffic arrangement with petitioners’ lines is a fair
one, and acceptable to the trafno agents of said lines, and thereunder the
charges are less than justified by the letter of the law, being less than