Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-02-16
The Recent Criticism of the Pennsyl-
Vania Supreme Court
INCONSISTENCIES OF DECISIONS.
Cases Bearing on the Responsibility for
Injury of Employees.
PURCHASE OF TICKETS AT STATIONS
WRITTEN FOR THE DISPATCH,

the State Constitution and laws on one sl0e,
and the misguided, the offender, the op-
pressor, the schemer, the monopolist ct I'd
OnlTle genus on the other. The court has lately
been very much criticised for some OF its
decisions and, in recent years. especially,
for its railroad decisions, which are claimed
by LAWYERS to be strangely at variance with
decisions of other courts in other States,
and with the decisions of some of the most
eminent Justices of the United States Su-
preme Bench.
knowledge of the peculiarities of its.
railroad decisions has reached beyond Penn
sylvania. From st. Louis comes a legal
text book published by John D. Lawson, en-
titled Leading Cases Simpliied," on page
236 of which the following severe language
regarding our highest tribunal is used:
"Here is perhaps the place to warn the stu
dent, so far as the law of carriers is con-
cerned, not to pay much heed to the deci-
sions of the Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
vania, at least during the past 10 or 10
years. The Pennsylvania Railroad appears
to run that tribunal with the same success
that it does its own trains"
To give color to this assumption is the
fact that the railroad companies of the State
have arisen without law from the chartered
position of public highways, to whom the
Legislature loaned for period of years the
operation of the States exclusive right Of
eminent domain, to be, not lessees or pos
SCISSORS of easements through the State, but
absolute masters of everything in their line
or interest, through the action or passive
acquiescence of our high authorities.
Judge Black, who was considered one of
the best constitutional lawyers in the State,
decided in the case OF the Erie and North
east Railroad versus Casey e Casey 287),
that lands for the railroad "Were taken for
public use, otherwise they could not have
been taken at ALL" Redfeld on Railways,
page 229, says: "a public highway is not
private property, any more than a public
Office. ;" and that ''if by any reason a railroad
neglects its public duties or abuses its cor
porate privileges it forfeits its charter; and
its franchises and rights are extinguished
and revert to the State" Justice Grier, in
an important case, said: 1.-THE grant OF
franchise is of no higher order and confers
no more sacred title than grant Of land to
an individual"
AN APPARENT INCoNsIsTENCY.
But the Supreme Court seems to think the
railroads of this State are under its fostering
care and need tender nursing, and appa-
rently forget that they are mere public high
ways and are only entitled to fair dealing.
It has been decided many times by national
and State Supreme Courts that no Legisla-
ture can part with wholly to any corporate
or private body the right of eminent domain.
The Supreme Court of this State has said
that charters can be forfeited by misuse or
breach of privileges, in which case the fran
chises return to the State, "and the highway
remains as it always was, public property"
Corporations must furnish q true highway
in fact as we'll as in name. Justice Baldwin,
in the Camden and Amboy case, said that
''the declaration in the charter that it (the
railway is for public use does not make it
80 if the effect Of the charter is to give the
exclusive use to the corporation"
Railroad charters were originally given
to corporations and assistance lent them
through the States exclusive right of emf
nent domain, so that the States highways
might be improved.
The case Of Reese versus the Pennsylva-
mia Railroad Company, decided January 6,
1890, by Justice Mitchell, is widely COM
menIed on as peculiar. Reese having no
time to buy ticket at the East Liberty sta
ton, got on a passenger train at that station
at II IA P. M. to go to Pittsburg. Regular
fare for that trip was IA cents. Reese offered
this to the conductor. 1t was refused, unless
he would pay an additional 10 cents, which
was demand Tor more than 81 cents per
mile, allowed in the railroad company's
charter. 1t does not appear from the evil
dence that plaintiff knew Of the duplex
ticket arrangement. As q matter of fact he
did not know anything about it, nor was he
told anything about it by the conductor.
Mr.. Reese refused to pay more than the
customary IA cents. His money was refused
and he was elected from the train toward
midnight, thereby sustaining an assault for
which the lower court allowed him damages
of $3.50. The railroad appealed the case.
Judge Ewing was reversed. This case is
now exciting probably more attention than
any other, as it is fresh from the august
quill.
MAY FORCE TICKET PURCHASING.
The decision starts out with the assertion
that railroad may refuse passenger alto
gether unless he purchases a ticket. Yet
the laws governing common carriers don't
say so. No person may be refused unless
for contagious diseases, or being disorderly
or dangerous; and carriers are bound to carry
for the whole route for which they stipulate
according to their public notices. There is
nothing in the railroad charter which gives
the right to require ticket before taking a
seat in the car, but common usage has fos-
tered the system.
The Court decides the extra charge Of 10
cents is not unreasonable; that it is not
charge for transportation; simply loan (it
don't say forced). Would bankrupt road
be allowed to collect this extra 10 cents, or
is this a wink of the judicial eye toward
friendly power? What right has any high
vay to collect forced loan of 10 cents?
And what right has any highway to put
off ignominiously at any station day or
night passenger who mas offered the usual
fare to his destination?
The Court says that authorities are uni
form in the opinion that companies may
charge an additional sum or higher rate to
those who do not purchase tickets, and says
that the reasons mostly given point to the
fu1thering ''of the honest, orderly and con-
yenient conduct by the railroad company Of
its own business" And SO the Court,
through this decision, assists the railroad in
keeping its conductors honest at the expense
of the public, by compelling travellers to
buy tickets, or pay 10 cents extra, or get off
of the train, simply that one conductor may
handle the train and thereby save the hiring
of more conductors.
Saws the Court: "It is scarcely Just ground
of complaint that he (the passenger) has to
present his refunding ticket at the end of
his journey instead Of getting an ordinary
ticket at the start"
NOT ALL ARE TICKET STATIONS.
Suppose q woman gets on train where
no tickets are sold, and gets off at q similar
station? She gets a check or slip calling
for 10 cents, which she has to carry until
she, at some distant time, reaches a ticket
station, or else throws it away, as many do,
thinking it some system of red tape, which
it is. The Court says that the rule would