.
mssoum 1*Ac. RY. co. v. rsxas & Pac. RY. co. 7
local charges on the Texas & Pacino lines; and that respondents are
ready and willing to make the same arrangement with petitioners’ lines,
provided the latter will furnish them the same amount of business, under
the same conditions and advantages of interchange.
That the contract is not unlawful does not so plainly appear. As a "
general proposition, where a railroad company is not restricted or inhib-
ited by its charter or the law of the land, it may be conceded that it is
not unlawful for it to make an arrangement for special purposes, on a
sufficient consideration, and for the legitimate increase of its business,
(Nicholson v. GreatWestem Ry., 5 C. B. (N. S.) 366;) or that a carrier may
prorwte through freight with one, and not with another, (Eclipse Tow-boat
Oo. v. Pontchartratn R. Co., 24 La. Ann. 1;) or that, so far as the com-
mon law is concerned, the question is whether the rate to the complain- ,
ing party is reasonable, (Johnson v. Pensacola, etc., R. Oo., 16 Fla. 664;
Fitchbwrg R. Cb. v. Gage, 12 Gray, 393;) although the authority of all
these cases is shaken by the case of Scofield v. Radwcty Co., 43 Ohio
St. 571, and the authorities there cited.
The fact is that the Texas & Pacino Railway Company is hampered;
by its charter, as well as by the laws of Texas, in regard to discrimina-
_tion for or against connecting lines. Section 15 of the original charter
to the Texas Pacino Railroad Company (16 U. S. St. at Large, 578) is
as follows: ·
"Tl1at all railroads constructed, or that may be hereafter constructed, to
intersect said Texas &Pacinc Railroad, shall have aright to connect with that
line; that no discrimination as regards charges for freight or passengers, or
in any other matter, shall be made by said Texas Pacino Railroad Company
against any of the said connecting roads, but that the same charges per mile
as to passengers and per ton per mile as to freight, passing from said Texas
Pacino Railroad over any of said connecting roads, or passing from any of said
connecting roads over any part of said Texas Pacino Railroad, shall be made
by said company as they make for freight and passengers over their own road:
provided, also, that said connecting roads shall reciprocate said right of con-
nection and equality of charges with said Texas Pacific Railroad: and pro-
vided, further, that the rates charged for carrying passengers and freight per
mile shall not exceed the prices that may be nxed by congress for carrying
passengers and freight on the Union Pacino and Central Pacinc Railroads."
By act of congress approved May 2, 1872, (17 St.`at Large, 59,) among
other provisions, the name,style, and title of the Texas Pacino Railroad
Company was changed to that of the Texas & Pacino Railway Company,
and this provision was made, to-wit:
" That all roads terminating at Shreveport shall have the right to make the
same running connections, and shall be entitled to the same privileges for the
transaction of business in connection with the Texas do Pacific Railway, as
are granted to roads intersecting therewith."
Congress, by the act of 1871, granted some 15,000,000 acres of the
public land to aid in the construction of the Texas Pacino Railroad. On .
the second of May, 1873, the legislature of the state of Texas passed “An
act to adjust and denne the rights of the Texas & Pacino Railroad Com-
pany within the state of Texas/’ etc. Under this act the line of the road