The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1897-10-05
INTERSTATE COMMERCE DECISIONS ON
FREE PASSES.

road COMMISSION AGl tcAt1El AL~t lie
North Carolina act adds a Paragraph
making i punishable by a fIe Of not
loss than $1,000. nor more thsn S5.GG9
for each and every ofence.'D The dec
s.ons Of the Interstate Commission,
comrosed of FIVE eminent law ers, AMI
presided over by Judge i. u Cooey,
author of Constitutional Limitations, s
Of especial interest, since Juae- Robin
sons recent charge TO the grand jury OF
Wake as 10 free passes.
We have had a synopsis OF these deci
SONS made and present them below.
In Harvey vs.. Louisville and Nash
vile Railroad, 81 c. c. r., it IS said:
The fundamental and prevailing pur-
nose of the law (Sec. % is equality u
treatment. 1t assumes that railroads
are engaged in a public service and re-
ouirps that service to be impartally rem
dered. It asserts the right Of every
citizen to nse the agencies which tho
carrier provides on equal terms with all
his fellows and finds an invasion of that
right in every unauthorized exemption
from charges commonly imposed. No
form Of favoritism and no species Of
.I III ~tN1lIS - 0ANON'
hle than that which accords TO person
al influence or public station privileges
not enjoyed by the public at large. The
free carriage of certain persons merely
because they occupy official positions or
have acquired some measure or dlstlnc-
ton offends the rudest conceptions OF
equality and cOntrayenes alike the poi
icv and the provisions OF the statute. The
practice is illegal. 1t is ordered that
the defendant cease and des.St from
granting free passes or otherwise fur
nishing free passes over Interstate lines
excent as permitted by Section %" & e,
to all except railroad officers and en-
ploves.) The opinion was filed on II
february. 1892.
In Griffee VS.. r. r. from Nebraska.
. Inter S. Com. Rep. 1914. decided in
1888, it is said: "It is an offence under
the law for a railroad company to
charge. demand, collect or receive from
some person or persons a compensation
for a like service when none is co-tenl-
ANONYMOUSLY charged or received from
another person transported free"
In Slater vs.. r. r., ? /. G. G. r., it s
said: Free transportation hy an an
nual pass to a person not in the regular
and stated service of the carrier, nor
receiving any wages or salary under a
tbIlIIICJ. u tliItiDS Iiltils III ltit1NttI
by him as compensation for throwing in
its way what business he conveniently
could, is illegal"
In re-Reduccd Rates of p. and NJ II.
r.. ; l.. G. g. r.. it is said: "The -ta-lle
was undoubtedly framed to prob h Hasf-
es or free transportation Of persons. Is
one of the forms Of unjust aisorlmIn1
ton. favoritism and misuse IF e0rDQ}
ate powers that had grown into am ahu}e
Of large proportions and become d.
mOralizing in its influence Ar ! "A. .rimel-
tai to railroads both in loss af ravcnle
and provoking public hostility. The din
elimination IS equally uSiust uha - t..s
free transportation be con foI
- son PERSONS busirAtlhr for
G-NSd indirect advantd9"o -
: rier. The abuse should not beteeT
ued or new ones devised under cover !of
any discretion left to the carrier" Fte-
ferring to Section % (Section % Of the
North Carolina Act) the same opinion
says: "The classes of persons that may
have reduced rates or free carriage ARE
thus carefully specified in the Statute
and their enumeration necessarily eX-
cludes al others"
In Elk Parte Koehler. l /. O.. G. RI
ST. Judge Deadly decided that the act
forbids the issue of free passes to famk
lies of the railroad officer or employee.
In < I. c.. G.. r. 50. it is pointedlt
said "The practice of the defendant rail-
road company in giving free transporta-
ton to gentlemen long eminent in the
public service or ''higher officers Of
the States and prominent officials of the
United States.'' members Of legisla-
tive railroad committees persons
whose good will is important to the cor
poration," is unwarranted unless the
favored person also comes under somo
exception specified in section - (Section
% of North Carolina ac0 Of the Act to
regulate commerce.
: In 2 /. G.. G.. r. 1863, il is said, Gar
riers can reward persons not in their
stated and regular employment for occa-
sional services. or for benefits indirectly
received in other and better ways than
by furnishing them with free transporta-
ton. The evils in the unrestricted en-
plOyment of free passes by common car
riers had grown so great and had be-
come so apparent-that it was deemed
absolutely necessary by Congress to eriI-
icate the whole system in order to put
an end to the abuses which had grown
beyond the limits of any other regulation
or control"
In I. C. G. r. 800 it is said: "TIe
statute undoubtedly was framed to pr,-
hihit passes or free transportation Of per
WIS - viz y tIt y III VI uDIllSC as
elimination. favorit;sm. and misuse bf
/ corporate powers that had grown into an
abuse of large proportions and become
demoralizing in its Influence and detri-
mental TO railroads.. both in loss of rev
enre and in provoking public hostility.
One Of the minor and meaner phases Of
this abuse is the distinctive nrpforancp
shown in various ways by employees. both
in service md ~civilitv to holders of mass
eS. rs if discrimination by free carriage
includes discrimination in treatment Of
passengers. It was we'll known that npr-
sons who were carried free were. to q
large extent precisely the persons who
bod no claim whatever to such favors.
They were officials md others from
whom free passes might be expected r.
secure reciprocal favOrs. and men Of
wealth and prominence who ride AT the
pvnpnSe of others less able TO nav. or
the passes were given to influence h7si-
ness. In nearly all cases not snpcio' "
evpmnted by the Act. the motive in do
mor1inc or in giving them was p IL