Alma record. (Alma, Mich.) 1878-1928, 1897-10-08
IT'S GOOD Law.
A 1900 NILE TICKET GOOD FOR ANY
MEMBER OF A FAMILY.


in this state To sell l,000-mile tickets,
good for the purchaser and any member
of his family for 500 each, is a good
law, and a decree is entered enforcing
it in the case of Henry c. Smith aga INST
the Lake Shore q Michigan Southern
railroad.
The case was tried i'm the Lenawee
circuit, Judge Lane issuing an order
requiring the company 10 sell the relat-
or q ticket under the conditions inn
posed by the law, and from this order
the railroad company appealed.
Judge Montgomery wrote the main
opinion in the case, which was signed
by Justices Long and Moore. Justices
Hooker and Grant wrote dissenting
opinions. The law provides that the
mileage tickets shall be good Oh lines
of railroads plying partly within and
partly without the state, and the con-
tention of the railroad company was
that this provision affects interstate
commerce and is therefore |unconstitu.
tional. Justice Montgomery says, now
ever. that this contention cannot be al
lowed for the reason that the statute,
fairly construed, was intended to limit
the use of the mileage ticket to the state
of Michigan. 1t fixes the price of the
ticket-not exceeding $50 in the lower
peninsula and S2j in the upper PENN
sula. The court says that while the
language is not very apt it was the clear
intention that a ticket, the price of
which was $40, should be used only in
the lower peninsula, and one, the price
Of which was $50, could be used only
in the upper peninsula, and that neither
could be used beyond the limits Of the
state.
A second contention urged by the
railroad company was that the law is
in conflict with the charter of the ON
pany which was granted prior to the
amendment to the constitution reserv-
ing the right to alter or amend charters
of corporations, and that it therefore
impairs the obligation of contracts.
The opinion of Justice Montgomery
is exhaustive upon this feature of the
case, the conclusion reached being that
the consolidation OF the old Michigan
Southern Railway Co. with the North
crn Indiana Railroad Co. and other
companies i'm Ohio. Pennsylvania and
New York. amounted TO the organIza-
uon of a new corporation subject to the
provisions of the constitution and the
act under which 1t was ~reorgauized.
Upon this point the court says: The
companies at present forming the res
pendent derived rights under the law
permitting "a consolidation, and, while
ihcrc may be difficulty in subiccting SO
much of The property of the conSolidat-
e. company as lies without Inc state to
our Jurisdiction, or i'm controlling the
transactions of the corporation itself
without the state. or nm fixing taxation
upon a basis which rests upon lis earn
ags outside Tia, state, it is not appar-
.ul Why the company as to its exercise
If corporate functions within
Tine state is not subject to- the terms Of
.he.act authorizing it- consolidation as
united by the constitutional provision
81 force at the Time. on why il il, not
subject TO local egJ-latiou."
The third and fourth contentious of
hc company That tho acl is mconstiiu-
iooal because 1t attempts to compc
companies To enter into contracts lor
V1 years. aud Is thus nm INVASION OF
Ire right, to the use Of property aud
..att nc act j., p conflict with the con-
rutfou. which limits the power of the
.-Iat0ro tn G>iag tbe MAXIMUM rates
t4 be- charged. are both disposed of by
t..poiou. IT. was argued that tine
a-i tune ol 1s9I. having fixed the
Nv .<+mum rate ais cents as ID. certain
H. earning less tbau $1,000 per miIc.
y cent. and = cent?, respectively
roads earning more than $1,000 per.