The news & observer., 1898-05-25
SUPREME COURT DECISION
JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER
COURT AFFIRMED.
ALL DISCRIMINATION is ILLEGAL
Except to Those Persons Who are Excepted
in the Railroad Commission Act'-Intent
of an Attache not Considered
The Courts Opinion.
The Courts Opinion.

The decisions OF the supreme court III
what is known as the Free Pass cases
were handed down yesterday. There were
two cases. one against the Southern rail
way and one against the Raleigh and
Augusta Air Line railroad company
the acts in the two cases being
practically the same. and the special
verdict of the jury the same. The opin-
ion of the court was written by Justice
Montgomery, and is based upon the case
against the Southern railway company.
The same decision, however, applies to
the case against the Raleigh and Au-
gusta Air Line railroad, and in both
cases the judgment of the lower court
was affirmed. These two cases went up
from Wake county Superior court, where
special verdict was found, the jury
finding that while the law had been vio-
lated, there had been no intent
on the part of the officers of the defend
ant company to violate the law.
The lower court imposed q fine of
$1,000 on each company and appeals
were taken.
The court, after quoting the special
verdict of the jury and the section Of the
Railroad Commission Act under which
the indictment was brought, says:
''The question presented for our deci-
sion is. does the act prohibit and make
indictable the giving of free trans
portation to passengers by common car
riersg
Upon it's face clearly it does, not in all
cases, because in section % the giving
of such free transportation or transpor-
tation at reduced rate, to certain classes
of persons therein particularly specified.
is allowed, but the person who received
free transportation in this case did not
come within either of the exceptions Of
the statute.
The court then, after referring to the
points in the argument by counsel on
both sides, says:
s'The crucial point in the case is cen
tered around the defendants contention
and assumption that the like and con
temporaneous service in the transporta-
ton of two individuals one carried free
and the other for the prescribed tariff
rate is not necessarily under substantial
That is that the company can take into
consideration as to whether it will give
free transportation to a passenger, the
circumstances and conditions which sur
round the two persons, and il one is a
higher official or a large shipper, or a
politician of power, whose influence
may be of service to the company, or
one of special distinction, and the other
a laborer, then the conditions and the
circumstances are not the same and
therefore the statute does not apply.
OF course if this contention of the de-
fendant is sound. this case is mt an
end, and the free transportation of pas
sengers is therefore in no case unlawful:
so we win examine that position Of the
defendant, first in order.
What then, in respect to the trans
portation of passengers in connection
with the statute is meant by the words.
Substantially similar circumstances and
conditionsY 1t cannot be doubted that
if each of two persons desired 10 ship
ii thousand pounds of freight of like
kind over a railroad between the same
points and at the same time. the com
pany must render the same service at
the same rate to both, whether one of
the shippers was a politician with a
pull or Il higher official or member
of the Legislature or Congress, or
laborer. That would be like contem-
poraneous service" in the transportation
of a like kind of traffic. under sub
stantially similar circumstances.
'In our opinion. section Of the Act.
in plain words, prohibits the making of
greater charge against one person than
against another for Il like and contem-
poraneous service under substantially
similar circumstances and conditions,
applicable to the carrier of both passen-
gers and property, the language is SO
clear that he may read who rams"
'"The only possible difference between
two individuals is that in relation TO
the size of their bodies, and this can
have no bearing in the matter of trans
portation. as the difference in the size
and weight of persons tower certain
age), has not yet been regarded in the
business of hauling passengers, rs
ground for making differences in passen-
ger rates.
Boiled down. says the court, "the
contention of the defendant on this point
is just this:
If one person should he the Governor
Of the State. q member of Congress, or
of the General Assembly, a leader in
Wnat Is called the business or the social
world, and the other is an ordinary
toier for his bread a case of 'substan-
italy dissimilar circumstances and condi-
tions' exists, and the company may give
the favored ones free transportation for
their influence and charge and receive
from the other full fare, because he has
no influence. Can it be supposed for a
moment that the General Assembly Of
North Carolina would enact law pur-
porting to protect the great body of the
people against inequality and unjust dis
elimination on the part of the railroad
companies. based on such class dstinc.
tion? This contention Of the defendant
if it could be maintained, would simply
divide the people of the
State, not only into the sheer
and the goat, the good and the
bad, and reward or punish them by Civ.
ing TO one and withholding from the
others. free passes,-but into those whose
influence is considered valuable to the