. Missoum mc. RY. co. v. rnxas & mo. RY. co. 9
under its control, a parallel or competing line; nor shall any officer of such
railroad corporation act as an oiiicer of any other railroad corporation owning
or having the control of a parallel or competing line. "
It is contended in this case that the laws of Texas can have no force,
because the connection between petitioners’ lines and respondents’ lines
is not in-Texas, but in Louisiana; but this view loses sight of the fact
that the contract under consideration is made with railway lines in Texas,
with reference entirely to business iuterchanged in Texas. It would
seem, too. that, under the circumstances, the regulations of the laws of
Texas with regard to the matters here involved should be binding on the
Texas & Pacino Railway,-Company in morals, if not in law. Of course,
the provisions of the charter and the supplemental- charter are binding
on the company, and on the respondents, who are operating the railway
linesrunder the franchises and rights granted the company.  
A Under these provisions of section 15 of the charter, and of the laws of
Texas, accepted by the Texas & Pacino Railway Company for a con-
sideration, it is by no means clear that the discrimination stipulated in
the contractor agreement with the Missouri Pacino system is lawful;
Both the charter and Texas grant provide that no discrimination, as re-
gards charges for freighter passengers, or in any other matter, shall be
made by said Texas & Pacino Railway Company against any ofthe con-
necting or·inte1·seotihg roads; and in the Texas grant as well as in the
Texas law is the further provision that said railway company shall not
enter into any combination in the nature of a partnership, with any railroad
in the state running parallel with the said Texas &,Pacino, or in the
same general direction that would in any way or manner give- the said
company the power to control the rates of freight and passage on said
railroad. That the contract gives the Missouri Pacino lines advantages
not granted to other connecting and intersecting lines is apparent from
the extract given. That the Missouri Pacino lines are to a considerable ·
extent in competition with the Texas & Pacino lines appears from the
reasons given by respondents for entering into the contract. That-the
Missouri Pacino system has more than 200 miles of railway in Texas
parallel to the lines of the Texas & Pacino lines appears by the record.
If the contract with the Missouri Pacino system be unlawful, as not in
consonanoe with the acts of congress and the laws of Texas, then the con—
~ sid-eration thatit operates to the benefit of the trust property can have no
weight. Neither is it material_ that the present arrangements with peti-
tioners’ lines are fair and satisfactory to petitioners’ agents. - ·
The proposition that the respondents are ready and willing to make
the same arrangements with petitioners’ lines, provided the latter will
tender them the same amount of business, under the same conditions,
is plausible only to the eye. The general tone of the answers of respond-
ents-seems to- justify a discrimination in favor of connecting lines on the
basis-of the amount of business furnished; as, for instance, within a
given period, the Missouri Pacific system furnished the Texas & Pacino
over 6-15,000,000 pounds of freight, while during the samaperiod the
` petitione1·s’*1ines only furnished about 18,000,000 pounds. " ~ “ — ,