The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1900-08-07
New York Cotton Market.
TICKET sCALPING UNLAWFUL.
Opinion by Judge Porter Sustaining
the Pennsylvania Statute.


HARRISBURG, Pa, Aug. la the
opinion handed down by Judge William
W Porter, of the Superior Court of Peun-
sylyania. affirming the judgment of the
Quarter Sessions Court of Allegheny coun-
ty, in the ticket seaIping case of the Com
monweaIth VS.. Keary and sustaining the
constitutionality of the Pennsylvania stat
ute for the protection OF travellers, it is be-
neved that ticket scaIping in this State has
received its deathblow. After reciting the
decision of Judge Ludlow in the PhnadeI-
phia court in 1880. and other precedents.
the judge continued:
The act does not impair the obliga-
ton of contracts, since the contracts al
legged to be affected by the act had no ex-
istenee until nearly forty years after its
passage. The act does not violate the con-
stitutionaI provision respecting inter-StaIe
commerce It is not an attempt to make
a rule affecting the person and conduct of
those attempting to do certain acts which
have been forbidden under penalty
The act Of 1863 does not abridge any
privilege or right secured to citizens. eth
re by the Constitution of the United States
or by that Of the Commonwealth; nor does
it deprive any Of property without due
process of law It does not deprive the
holder of a railroad ticket of the unused
portion of it. 1t regulates the sale and
requires the company issuing to buy. The
purchaser Of railroad ticket takes it sub
iect to such reasonable restrictions as the
law may impose upon the public business
of the carrier. The purpose of the act is
TO prevent fraud. 1t is Tecited in the pre-
amble that, Whereas numerous frauds
have been PFacticed upon unsuspecting
travellers by means of the SALE by unau-
thoriZed persons, of railway and other
tickets.
THE appellant is not in the position of
one innocently selling an unused portion of
a ticket bought in good faith. He is con-
fessedly conducting a business at which
the act of Assembly directly strikes, and
which the Legislature has said is prolific
Of fraudulent results. The appellant is not
deprived OF any property of which he is
honestly the owner, nor is he prevented
from prosecuting business of a kind rec
ognized by law as respectable. The privi-
Ieges and immunitieS protected by the
Constitution are subject to such restraints
as the Government may prescribe for the
general good of the whole people The
appellant has therefore, no right to COM
plain of the restriction put upon his bust
ness, which has been stigmatized as con-
ducive of fraudulent acts and practices %
The Judge then called attentions to the
reports of the Interstate Commerce Com
mission on the question OF ticket seaIping.
and the impression made upon, the minds
Of its members as to its fraudulent charac-
ter as evidenced in the reports, and added:
while the Legislative body may be con-
ceded a larger discretion in proaouncfng
upon the moral character Of the e IS in re-
spect to which they have Iegisiated. vet is
the confederation Of their judgment ac-
cepted from a source created by national
authority. with national opportunity and
obligation to obtain accurate information .
Their reports further show that, the evil
appearing great the Commission has. on
more than one OCCASION advocated the
passage Of legislation by Congress, not diff
fering greatly from the Pennsylvania act
in order that the business of the ticket
broker might be stamped out by national
authority