The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-03-26
c. P. A. BOOK NOT AFFECTED.
Ruling of Indiana Appellate Court
Will Not Apply to New Methods.

Pittsburg Post.
The Interpretation of the press in some
instances, and published theron,
regarding a recent decision rendered in the
Appellate Court of Indiana, respecting the
rights of holders of Central Passenger AS
ISOLATION interchangeable mileage exchange
orders, is somewhat misleading. especially
the statements that the ruling of the court
was that a holder of an Interchangeable
mileage ticket it entitled TO ride on the
book itself in case he is unable for any
reason to secure an exchange ticket, as
required by the railroads" and that If
the higher courts sustain the decision. the
interchangeable book will be withdrawn
and the railroads will sell nothing but reg
ular tickets at the regular 3-cent-a-mile
rate"
The fact is that the so-called Central
Passenger Association mileage ticket" is
not a ticket at all, but an order for
tickets, which, under the contract condi-
lions of sale, accepted by the purchaser,
must be presented to ticket agents and
train tickets obtained in exchange for the
mileage coupons of the order-the order
itself not being accepted on trains under
any conditions whatever, the requirement
being in all cases that a ticket shall be
obtained in exchange for coupons as stated.
The case at issue does not directly affect
the operation of the exchange order in
any essential particular. 1t is simply a suit
dSdlnSl tic ElllSDuIS, CINCINNATI, SnlCdSO
& st. Louis Railway Company by the hold
er of one of these exchange orders, who
was unable TO secure an exchange ticket
at one of the offices of the company. be-
cause the agent had permitted his supply
or exchange tickets tot become exhausted
and was unable TO furnish the ticket. The
passenger boarded one of the trains of the
ompany and refused to pay fare, and
was elected by the conductor because the
exchange order could not be accepted for
passage, under its contract conditions.
The ruling of the Court of Appeals was
that in such a case, 1t was the duty of the
railroad company to accept the order for
passage on its train. The case has been
appealed to the Supreme Court. and If the
it will only affect cases Of precisely
the same nature and will not in any way
alter or abridge the conditions of sale of
these exchange orders, nor enlarge the
privileges which are accorded to the pur-
chasers.
An official of the Pennsylvania lines sug-
gests that 1t is possible that the court
may nave been influenced in it's decision
by fact that the exchange order held by
this passenger was one of a number orig
inally issued by the Central Passenger AS
ISOLATION" and Inadvertently called an 'in-
Interchangeable mileage exchange ticket
whereas II was nothing more nor less than
an order for tickets. The title of the
order was subsequently changed until they
are now called Central Passenger Asso-
citation interchangeable mileage exchange
orders" so that there may be no misunder-
standing upon the part of the purchasers
that they are not tickets. The same Of
fetal states without reservation that there
is not a particle of danger of the sale OF
no matter what the decision of the higher
courts may be.