Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1902-09-26
MAY USE ''FREE'' PASS
JUDGE WITT CONSTITUTES Ian
GUAGE OF THE NEW ANTI
PASS Law.
NOT A GRATUITY, BUT PAY.
Affects State officers Who Are Indcn-
tiHed With Railways
GIVEN FOR SERVICES RENDERED.
Hence. Says the Court, the Pass
Docs Not Come Within the Inhfbi-
ton of the Constitution-Decisi
In the Case of a. J. Trcvett. n no
tury Public, and Chief Clerk, c. &
o. Railway.


prohibition against the use of railway
passes by State officials was that render
ed yesterday in the Hastings Court of
the city of Richmond by Judge Samuel
B. Witt
The decision. in brief, is that where
such pass is received by an employee of
a railway who is also a State official in
consideration of services rendered such
company by him such pass is not
gratuity nor an unlawful discrimination
and therefore does not come within the
inhibition of the constitution.
The case was a quo warranto proceed
ing. in which it was alleged that Mr..
a. j. Trevett, notary public in and for
commissioned officer of the State, had
ridden on a railway pass in violation Of
the prohibition contained in section 161
of the State constitution. Mr.. Trevett
is chief clerk for the Chesapeake and
Ohio Railway Copmany. and it was al
legged. had a pass over that line and had
ridden on it.
Decides Question of Fact.
The decision Of the question presented
involves no opinion as to the constitution
aiity of the section, but merely a ques-
ton of fact ana is a construction Of the
language of the section and definition of
its scope and application. AS such the
opinion is of widespread and general
interest. for in defining what does and
what does not constitute a free pass,
frank. free transportation or rebate or
reduction it permits many others than
Mr.. Trevett to use their railroad passes.
Senator Henry T. Wicknam. who is
general counsel for the Chesapeake and
Ohio railway and q member of the Vir-
ginia Senate. may, as a result of this
decision. ride with a railway pass If it
be specified in his contract with the COM
pany or can otherwise be shown that the
same is bestowed upon him not as
gratlity, but in consideration of and as
part remuneration for services rendered
by him. There are other members of the
General Assembly who, as railway at
torneys or employees. will be interested in
this decision, and may, under the terms
and conditions prescribed, use a railway
pass without violating the express terms
of the constitution or incurring the pre-
scribed penalty which is forfeiture Of Of
flee.
Counsel in the Case.
Mr.. Trevett was represented by Mr..
Henry Taylor, counsel for the Chesa-
peake and Ohio Railway Company, and
by Mr.. Hill Carter. who was a member of
the convention which framed the Consti-
tuition. The State was represented by At
torney- General William A. Anderson,
who was himself a member of the Con-
stitutional Convention, and of the Cor
poraton Committee.
Mr.. Trevett's counsel. in their answer
admitted all the allegations concerning
his position as a notary public. that he
had a pass over the Chesapeake and
Ohio railway; that he had ridden on
same and everything else alleged. ex-
cept that il was a free pass. This they
denied. and in support of their conten-
sion read a contract entered into July
S. 1902 between Mr.. Trevett, chief clerk,
and the Chesapeake and Ohio railway,
wherein the said company agreed to pay
him as CONDENSATION for his services the
sum of S1.6Go per annum and pass over
the lines of the Chesapeake and Ohio
and another reciprocal pass over the
Richmond. Fredericksburg and Potomac
railway.
Gist of Mr.. Tny1or's Argument.
Mr.. Taylor, who opened the case, con-
tended that it was in no sense Tree
mass. but was as much and as specifically
q part of compensation for services as
was the financial consideration named IN
the contract AS such, he contended, Mr.
Trevett was entitled to use the same
without incurring the penalty prescribed
by the Constitution. he considered the
phra aseology of the section III micro
scopic detail. defining each separate "or.a
and arguing that the pass was in no
or roha fa Hp
took issue with the Attorney-General in
The latter's contention that this was "a
Gift. privilege or benefit as is prohibited
by this section In order to come with
in the category of prohibited privileges
or benefits he contended that it must be
free, a gratuity or q discrimination. and
it was none of these. MIR. Taylor quoted
numerous decisions from the Federal
Court reports defining what constitutes
a free pass or gratulty ana presented
his case strongly.
He was followed by Mr.. Carter, who
made forceful argument along the same
line and analyZed the section or the
Constitution and defined the difference
between the case in point and those III
hibited by the law with great clearness
and convincing force.
Represented the State.
Attorney-General Anderson closed the
argument with strong contention that
the use of a free pass by Mr.. Trevett,
or any other officer of the State, or the
municipality, whether given in conslde-
ra ton of services rendered to such COM
pany or not was a violation of the sec
ton referred to- The Acknowledgement
insisted that it was the intention OF the
convention to prohibit such acceptance
of passes. He made an able presenta-
ton of the case from his standpoint, in
sisting that the pass in the case under
considerati ton was a privilege, or benefit.
and therefore a violation of the prohi-
bition, which placed the person so violat-
ing it liable to the penalty prescribed.
Judges Terse Opinion.
After hearing the argument on both
sides Judge Witt rendered his opinion,
sustaining the contention of Messrs. Tay-
lor and Carter, and holding that the pass
in this case was in payment for ser
vices. and not such as the Constitution
forbade a State or city officer to ac-
cept.
This opinion is in conflict with one
delivered recently by the Attorney-Gene-
raj. 1t is not yet known whether Mr..
Anderson will appeal the cases to the
Supreme Court Of Appeals or not. but the
matter VIII finally And it's s 5.Wa,Xt 10 that