St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-05-26

issued they might have done so, even
without max ing any provision at all for
their redemp ton by the carrier if not
used. This might not be true as TO the
tickets by their expressed or implied
terms transferable, purchased before
the passage of the act; but as to the
tickets issued and purchased after that
it Is unqueStlonably tue. for the statute
becomes part of tine contract expressed
in the ticket and is inherent in the
property in u. D. den VS.. Saunders, IL
Wheat, 2l3.
The Indictment in this case charges
defendant with selling the ticket nearly
SIX months after the passage of the act,
and II the law should he regarded as in
valid as to tickets issued and purchased
before it was passed, it was for the de-
PENDANT to plead and prove that he
comes within the class of persons to
was one as to which the statute does
not operate. A law may be entirely
valid as to some persons and some acts,
aud invalid as to others, and its i'll
validity can be raised and taken advan-
tage Of only by those who show that
they have right to question the act.
They must show that their rights are
taken away by the law, and that as to
tier, in the particular case, there is a
higher law III the constitution which
supersedes the statute.
In Indiana and Illinois the courts
have upheld statutes similar to the one
under consideration in all material re-
spects except that they provide that the
acts shall not prohibit any person who
has purchased ticket from any agent,
authorized as by the act provided, with
the bona tide intention of travelling upon
the same, from selling it to any other
person. Fry VS.. State, 63 Ind. 552;
Burdick VS.. The People, N. E. Rep. ,94S.
In these cases the coIrts lay some
stress upon this provision. But We are
unable to see how the absence Of it at
fects the validity of the act, or now, at
least, as to choice of tickets issued after
its passage. it deprives person of his
property 'without due process of law"
The law may, in that respect. be rore
drastic, but if the legislature thought
that such an exception would open the
doors to invasions of the law, and that
the evils aimed at could be etfectually
remedied only by absolutely prohibiting
any sale of tickets within the state eX-
cept by the carrier himself through his
agents authorized in the manner pro-
vided, we think it was competent tor
them to so declare.
Neither is there anything in the OBJ
JCSIlVu Cldls WullT lHC dCl DlOlllUito luC
sale of any tickets except in the manner
prescribed, it only provides for the
redemption of unused tickets OF rail-
roads or steamboats, situated or operated
In whole or in part within the state.
This Limitation OF the provisions as
to redemption MAY have been because
OF the supposed inability of the state TO
compel redemption by foreign OF non
resident steamboat or railway COM
panies. But, as the sale of all tickets
might have been prohibited without
any provision for their redemption, the
act does not deprive the holder of
a ticket of nonresident carrier
simply because 1t leaves him. IN
such remedies, if any, as may be
given him by the law of the domicil Of
the carrier. 1t is hardly necessary to
suggest that iI is just as necessary, in
order to prevent frauds on the public,
to regulate the sale within the state of
tickets of nonresident" carriers as of
"resident' ones. We may add in pass
ing that section of the act makes it the
duty of the carrier within the state to
redeem tickets sold by it in ANY man
ner," no matter whether sold within OF
without the state. Also that the word
''OwnerS" is used in comprehensive
oCAoCs 81 40 w lhCluuC oiA wiz hiS oPSh.
ating railroad or steamboat. whether
as owners of the property OF as lessees,
receivers or the like.
What has been said fully covers the
first three objections TO the statute.
There is clearly nothing in the OBJ
lection that the act unlawfully inter
feres with interstate commerce. In the
first place the question is not in this
case because the ticket is not for an
interstate ride. But even if it was
there would be nothing in the point.
The law is not revenue law aud is
not designed to. and does not, regulate
police regulation of the sale and
transfer of tickets designed, to
protect the public from frauds,
and its interference, if any, with
Interstate commerce is purely in
cidental and accidental. The grant of
power to congress to regulate inter-
state commerce was never designed to,
and does not, at all interfere with po-
lice power of the states to promote do
nestle order. to prevent crime. and to
protect the lives and property of its
citizens, although such regulations may
Indirectly operate upon and affect inter-
state commerce. Such regulations are
valid in spite of their operation on COM
merce, and the right to pass them does
not originate from auy power Ill the
state to regulate commerce. The books
are so full of cases to this effect that
the citation of authorities in support of
the proposition is unnecessary.
Neither is there anything in the last
objection. If defendant is correct in his
construction of section {. that it only
imposes penalty in favor of the state
upon incorporated carriers for a refusal
to redeem unused tickets, this is not an
objection which he is i'll position to
raise, as it does not affect him. If any
owner of a railroad or steamboat situ-
ated or operated in whole or in part
within the state refuses to redeem his
his tickets, as provided in section 5. the
purchaser has his civil remedy wholly
independent of section T. Even if the
latter section should be declared wholly
invalid, on the objection of an incorpo-
rated carrier,it would not affect the val
ldity OF the balance of the act.
We have endeavored to give this case
the consideration which its importance
deserves, and are not able to see that
any OF the objections urged against the
validity of the act are we'll founded.
With the policy or wisdom of it we have
nothing to do.
Order sustaining the demurrer is re-
verSed and the cause remanded.
Judges B.ck and Canty absent.