The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-06-23
TIE ANTI.SCALPING LAW
Decision Declaring Il Unconstitutional Gre
ales Surprise.
81. LOUIS JEALOUS OF THE GULF PORTS.
he WithdrnSvn-Raiirun En-
tension TO San Antonio.

The decision OF the court of appeals
holding that the anti-scalpers' act of 1888
is unconstitutional, has been of more than
Houston where strenuous effort was at
one time made to enforce the provisions of
the act.
Shortly after the passage OF the law
prominent ticket broker OF Houston was
arrested for its violation. The Judge of
the criminal district court was absent
when this arrest was made, and the
scalper's attorneys applied to the civil
district judge for writ of habeas corpus
The plaintiffs attorneys took the position
that the act under which the arrest was
made was unconstitutional and void
The case was argued ut length. and the
opinion OF the supreme court of Indiana,
and of an appellate court of Pennsylvania,
holding similar statute constitutional,
having been cited, it was held in written
opinion handed down by the civil district
| Judge that the Texas act was unconstitu
! tional.
Under the rules of practice the State
could not appeal in criminal case of this
character and the scalper was discharged
/ No further attempts were made to enforce
the act in Harris county, but as it also
carried provision requiring the redemp-
ton OF unused tickets within ten days af-
ter their expiration. the railroads were
anxious to secure a final decision as to
the constitutionality of the entire act, as
this redemption clause operated to their
serious disadvantage, inasmuch as scalpers
could relieve themselves OF unsold tickets
that had expired and were not salable, with
no risk or loss to themselves.
Besides this tickets which had escaped
the vigilance of the conductors on crowded
trains, although used by the purchases Tor
transportation, were being redeemed in
large numbers by the passengers them.
selves or through the ticket brokers.
Another case of a suit against the rail-
, road company for failure 10 redeem
ticket under the act was brought up in the
county court of Harris county. The coun.
ty judge before whom the case was tried
held that the act was constitutional, bu
that the railroad company was required I,
redeem tickets only when presented by al
: original purchaser The plaintiff took tn,
case to the court OF civil appeals which
, affirmed the judgment of the lower cour
} and took exactly the same view of tint
matter that the lower court did. On ac
count OF the amount involved the cast
could not be carried to higher court
however.
In still another case a ticket broke
in Houston sued the Texas and New Or
II leans railroad for the value OF tickle
and for $500 penalty for failure on tn
part of the railroad to redeem the ticke
when presented. The evidence shove
that the soriginal purchaser had in fac
: Travelled on the ticket, but that The con
ductor had failed TO take 1t up and can
Il eel IT. and after the purchasers arrlVa
# at destination he presented the ticket |
defendants agent for redemption, whic
was refused because il had already bet
d used. Thereaf terwards the purchaser sol
it to the broker, through scalper with
II ont notice that the ticket had been use,
st The defendant, among other things mac
"a the point that the act under whlen su
was brought was UNCONSTITUTIONAL n!
le ,yas dnno To- have the disputed point sci
te tied. 49, a., ve
~ constitutional but that the ticket coul
% he redeemed only in the hands OF u
=, original purchaser oa
~ The case in which the court Oh aPPea
n, has Just handed down lts deelslon' ~ -. =,
III effect that the act was unconstltutloha
al was first brought up In the dlstrlcI uou
rs NJ Revar county. which decided the a
in 70 he constitutional From this declslt
ed Tho defendant appealed. 1t Is more yu'
IT probabie that as the question OF the COZ
m stitutionality of the clause requitius ~ ~
n redemption of tickets on presehta,'onHf ~ -,
to not been passed upon by the eourt oi a.
a. peals, the railroad companies t.,o WIZ aeto Il
ie nroceedings to get decision as w. Il
o. constitutionality OF the entire ACT w -
y supreme court Of the STATE - son
n The Question has become oS one 81 S tn
n complexity as it viii be o obs ,:rere
u the different courts hold entlro'S
II views on the subject