St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-04-28
TICKET BROKERS WIN.
The Illinois Anti-Scaiper Law De-
cIared to Be Unconstitu-
tional.
Probably the Same Fate Awaits
the Law in Mime
sofa.

The ticket brokers of st. Paul were
jubilant yesterday over the fact that they
had cleaned out the Illinois law, horse,
foot and drag OOns, and scored a victory
that will be quoted in the courts of Min
neSOta if test case is ever made here.
The two laws are almost identical, and
the victory in Chicago seems to precede
a similar triumph in st. Paul. Clarence
E. C0rbett, manager of the firm of Nc
KenZie Il Frey. has received the text of
the decision, and as it will furnish an
authority if a case is made here, it is
printed for the benefit of those interest
ed. The case was very ably handled on
both sides, and was heard by the court
in banc. The decision is:
This law is a very peculiar one 1t pro-
vides that it shall be the duty of the owner
or owners OF any steamboat or railroad to
provide their agents with certificate setting
forth the authority of such agents resDect-
lively to make such sales. In section OF the
act il provides that il shall not be lawful for
persons not provided with such authority to
sell, barter or transfer any tickets or any evil
dence of the holders title to travel on any
railroad or steamboat. The section reads as
follows: THAT it shall not be lawful for anv
person not possessed of such AUTHORITY so
evidenced, TO sell, barter or transfer, for anv
consideration whatever, the whole or any
tart Of any ticket or tickets masses or nj her
evidences OF the holders title to travel on
any railroad or steamboat whether the same
be situated, operated or owned within or
without the limits of this state
The plaiU reading Of this act is that
any duly authorized agent of any rail-
road or steamboat may sell not only the
tickets or parts thereof of the company from
which he holds this authority but those of
any railroad or steamboat owner. The in
dictments IN these cases before us are all
based upon the theory that this law is Vio-
lated il person shall sell the ticket of a rail-
road company if not authorized by that par
ticular company TO do so. The law is plainly
otherwise. He may not be authorized BY q
Wabash company to sell tickets but he may
sell tickets over the Wabash line if author
lied by the Rock Island line. In each of the
indictments before us it is averred that the
defendant sold ticket over a particular
line, not being authorized by the corporation
owning that line 10 sell its tickets Ii does
not follow that each of the defendants NAV
not have been authorized by the owner of
some other railroad to 90 So
The consideration alone makes these i'll
dictments bad. None of them show viola
ton of this statute upon this ground and the
petitioners must be discharged. Taking this
view OF the case 1t is unnecessary for US to
pass npOn the consttutionality of the law,
which has been so ably argued before US
Still, we cannot fOrebear to call attention TO
some striking particulars of this statute. In
the peculiar provision just discussed, and in
another also, there is a difference between
! our statute and those of either PENNSYLVANIA
| or Indiana, where statutes of similar import
| have been declared by the courts OF these
states respectively to be valid. Under our
| statute any railroad or steamboat corpora
| ton may appoint agents TO sell, barter or
! transfer the whole or PARTS of railroad tick
| cts Oh any line, excluding any other per-
| son or corporation from such a privilege.
| 1t may be suggested that this is a very
| remarkable aud unusual delegation of the
| sovereign power Of the state. 1t NAV also be
| remarked that il comes within the cOnstitu-
| tionaI inhibition of section ~ article 4, Of
| the state constitution, which declares that
| the general assembly shall not pass any
| special law granting 10 any corporation as
| ISOLATION or individual any special or exclu-
! sive immunity or franchise whatever. Again
| it may be observed that considering this law
as police regulation by the state means a
| license 1t is unique in that it delegates to
| corporations not possessed of governmental
! power The licensing power of the state The
! act also bears evidence of hasty preparation
| and slight legislative reflection.
! In section of the act it is made the duty
both Of private and corporate owners Of