Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1892-05-17
ROCK ISLAND, TUESDAY, MAY II, 1892
DECLARED LAWFUL.
The Supreme Court Tackles
the Interstate Law.
OPINION ON THE PARTY RATE FARE

A Legitimate Business Under the Act
The b. and o. Downs the Commission
ers-Salient Points of the Decision
Land Claim of a Railway Rejected
The Funeral of the Late Senator Bar
bour Occupies the Senate's Attention
Roman Catholic Ceremonies in the
Chamber-Ohcial Notes.
WASHINGTON, May 1.-THE supreme
court of the United States met in final
session for the year at noon yesterday. All
the justices were present on the bench,
Mr. Lamar taking his place for the first
time since his attack of sickness in the
winter. The first case decided was that
of the interstate commerce commission
VS.. the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad COM
pany appealed from the court of the United
States for the southern district of Ohio.
The decision of that court was affirmed,
and the right declared of the defendant
railroad company to issue and sell what
are known as party rate tickets" carry
ing ten or more persons at a reduced rate
of fare.
Brief History of the Case.
The history of the case, as stated by
Justice Brown, was as follows: The Pitts
burg, Cincinnati and St. Louis Railroad
company filed a complaint before the in
terstate commerce commission against the
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad company
seeking to have the issue of "party tick
cts" by the latter declared to be illegal
as in violation of the interstate law and
the practice stopped. After hearing the
case the commission declared them to be
illegal and the Baltimore and Ohio COM
pany was ordered to cease their sale. 1t
declined to observe the order, and there
upon the commission began proceedings
in the circuit court at Cincinnati to enjoin
the sale of the tickets in question. The
court, however, dismissed the commits
sion's bill, holding that the issue of "par-
ty tickets was not illegal.
Objects of the Commerce Act.
Speaking for the court Justice Brown
said that the principal objects of the inter
state commerce act were to secure Just
and reasonable charges for transportation;
to prohibit unjust determinations in the
rendition of like services under similar
circumstances and conditions; to prevent
undue or unreasonable preferences to per
sons, corporations or localities; to prohibit
greater compensation for shorter than
| for longer distance over the same llne
Wholesale Cheaper Than Retail.
| 1t is not designed however to prevent
| competition between different roads, or to
interfere with the customary arrangements
made by the railway companies for re-
duced fares in consideration of increased
| milege where such reduction did not
! operate as an unjust discrimination
against other persons travelling over the
! the road. In other words, it was not in
| tended to ignore the principle that one can
| sell at wholesale cheaper than at retail.
1t is not all Determinations or preferences
| that fall within the inhibition of the
statute; such only as are unj just or unrea-
sonable.
Instance of just Discrimination.
For instance, it would be obviously un-
| just to charge "A" a greater sum than
"B" for a single trip from Washington to
Pittsburg; but if "a" agrees not only to go
but to return by the same route, it is no
| injustice to @B" to permit him to do so for
| a reduced fare, since the services are not
| alike not the circumstances and condi-
tions substantially similar as required by
| Section 2 to make an unjust discrimina-
ton. Indeed the possibility of just dis
| ordinations and reasonable preferences is
recognized by this section by declaring
| what shall be deemed unjust.
| Case That Is Not Allowable.
II, for example, railway makes to the
| public a certain rate of freight and to q
! particular individual residing in the same
| town a reduced rate for the same class Of
goods, this may operate as an undue
preference, since it enables the party to
sell his goods at lower price than his
competitors, and may even enable him to
/ - 80 ~ %l.% l~,,,;
ness Even if the same reduced rate be al
lowed to every one doing the same amount
of business such determinations may, if
carried too far, operate unjustly upon
smaller dealers engaged in the same busi-
ness, and enable larger ones to drive them
| out of the market.
Not in Violation of the Law.
The decision concludes as follows: @On
| the whole, we are of the opinion that the
party rate tickets as used by the defend
| ant are not open to the objections claimed
! by the interstate commerce commission,
| and are not in violation of the act to regu-
| late commerce and the decision of the
court below is, therefore, affirmed"
| First Opinion on the Act.
| This was the first time that the pro-
visions of the interstate commerce law had
been before the supreme court for con-
sideration, and the decision of the case
was looked for with much interest. 1t is
of importance not only to theatrical COM
panies 0or whose benefit the tickets in
question were originated by the Baltimore
and Ohio company but to the railroad
| officials and commissioners throughout
the country.
| OTHER SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
| Northern Pacific Land Claim Knocked
Out-Man-and-Wife Case.
The court also decided the case of Mary
Borden, appellant, VS.. the Northern Pacific
Railroad company, involving a large