San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1895-01-14
ANTI-SCALPER LAW
D eclared Unconstitutional By a Dali
las County Judge.

las Souhty ouoBe'
From the Dallas News.
Yesterday Hon. 7. F. Nash,
county judge OF Dallas county,
gave the following opinion on the
anti-scalper law, in which he de-
clared that law uncOnstitution all
and discharged the defendant:
No. l6,574.-The state OF Texas
VS.. j. II. Traxler. The defendant
is charged with violating the act
OF the twenty.third legislature,
known as the auti-scalpers law,
which prescribes penalty Of not
exceeding $500 for selling an I'M
used railway passenger ticket, or
the unused part OF such ticket, by
any person not having a certificate
from a railway company authOriz-
ing such person to make such sale.
The defendant moves to quash
the Information on two grounds {;
first, that there is no allegation
that defendant was an agent Of the
Texas and Pacific Railway COM
pany; second, that the act Of the
legislature under which the infor-
nation was drawn is unconstitu-
tional, null and void.
We are Of the opinion the act in
question clearly intends to pro-
hibit all persons from selling such
tickets except agents to whom
railway companies have given
certificates of authority, and there
fore the first ground Of the motion
to 'quash is not we'll taken.
The second ground Of the motion
appears to be well taken. The act
named authorizes railway COM
pany to give written permit to
any person such company may
select to sell unused tickets, or un-
used tickets, or unused parts Of
Of tickets, whether such person be
an agent for the company for other
purposes or not, and it forbids all
other persons, including the orig
nal purchaser OF. the ticket, SELL
ing the same for any consideration
whatever. II the act only restrict
ed the sale Of unused tickets to the
regular tickets to the regular
| ticket agents Of the company
which sells the ticket in the first
instance, it would undoubtedly in
volve large concession OF power
to the railway companies, but
when it permits the company to
issue its certificate OF authority to
sell unused tickets and unused
parts OF tickets to any person said
company may select, and to refuse
to Issue certificates to any person
said company may wish to refuse,
thereby enabling the railway COM
pany to constitute "scalpers" here
and there, and prosecute as Grim
inals all other less favored persons
who may wish to buy and sell
such tickets, it is certainly a
| species of discrimination and class
legislation in restraint of trade
that is inimical to our constitu-
tioR. When person buys a ticket
and pays for it the price asked, it
is his property, and the legislature
can not prevent him from selling
or otherwise dispOsing of it unless
his doing so would be a public
injury. Laws in restraint Of trade
are always based upon some
public mischief, injury or nuisance,
but in this case it is nowhere pre-
tended that the public suffers any
Inconvenience whatever from the
secondhand sale of railway tick
cts. On the contrary, we may
presume the public is benefited
by it. II the railway company
has gotten the price of the ticket,
can it be said that it is injured, I'M
less by reason OF the fact that it
may not sell as many tickets as 1t
would sell under the operation Of
this act? This however, is only an
incident Of the transaction, and
certainly does not justify confer
ring a monopoly upon the railway
company in selling unused tickets.
When a clothier sells suit Of
clothes and the purchaser wears it
awhile and sells the unused part
to a secondhand dealer, it is
quite likely the second dealer will
sell it to some man who might
otherwise buy new suit from
the clothier, and to that ex-
tent the secondhand man is inter
fering with the business Of the
clothier, but it affords no just rea-
son why a man should be compelled
if he dislikes his suit to take it
back to the clothier and receive
from him what it is worth, or be
punishedwith the secondhand man
if they sell the suit to another
party. Such law would certainly
be restraint upon the trade that
no free government would tolerate,
and there is no better reason for
the ti.scalpers act, unless it can
be shown it is necessary in order