The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-05-01
Decision of the State Supreme Court
in the Three-Cent Fare
Litigation.
CHARLES FINLEY SMITHS SUIT
HE LOSES 1T BEFORE THE STATES
HIGHEST TRIBUNAL.
Company Has Right to Demand
Fiye-Cent Cash Fare or Four-Cent
Ticket-COurt Cases.

The Supreme Court yesterday decided
that the law under which the Indianapolis
Street-railway Company holds it's franchise
is constitutional. Charles f. Smith brought
suit, soon after the franchise was granted,
for the purpose OF testing the law. He
alleged that he was elected from car be-
cause he refused to pay more than a s.
cent fare, insisting that the company had
no right to demand a scent cash fare or a
4-cent ticket
The court holds that the law is not one
of the special" sort that the Constitu-
tion forbids. because it does not create a
corporation 1t simply regulates the con-
tract between the city and the company.
1t does not forbid other companies re-
ceiving franchises. The opinion of the
court follows:
Appellants counsel state in their brief:
1.-The real questionable entire question be-
fore the cOurt-may be said TO be the con-
stitutionality of the act of 1899, under which
appellee claims the right to charge more
than cents for fare. If this is not con-
stitutional, we do not and cannot claim
any right of recovery against appellee
AS the complaint in this case does not
allege that the appellee was not acting un-
der contract with such city, pursuant to
acs of 1899, Page 260, Sec. 545s, c, ct seq,
Burns's Rev 1901, ii must be presumed that
the requirement of appellees conductor
was lawful, unless said act is unconStitu-
tional, as claimed by appellants counsel.
The section of the State Constitution that
they especially claim the act violates is the
twenty-third section of Article l. That sec
tion Is as follows: 1.-The General Assembly
shall not grant TO any citizen, class of
citizens, privileges or immunities which,
upon the same terms, shall not equally be-
long TO all citizens"
Before first discussing the law applicable
10 this particular case, We announce certain
propositions upon which the authorities do
not divide:
/ Every ultimate reasonable doubt as to
the validity of a statute is 10 be solved in
its favor: "It is not on slight implication
and vague conjecture that the Legislature
is TO be pronounced TO have transcribed its
powers and it's acts considered as void. The
opposition between the Constitution and
the law should be such that the Judge feels
a clear and strong conviction of their in
compatibility with each other" Marshall,
c. j., in Fletcher VS.. Peck, 8 Cranch, 81,
12s.
2 If a statute is within the legislative
power. the court cannot set up its judg-
ment as TO whether the power has been
wisely or unwisely exercised. 1t is its duty
in such cases not to obstruct, but to enforce
the legislative will.
2 II an act admits of two intern, eta
tions. one of which will bring it within and
the other presses il beyond the constitu-
tiOnal authority of the General Assembly,
that Interpretation Will be adopted which
will make il possible 10 uphold the act, be-
cause a presumption will not be INDUCED
that the lawmaking power intended to vio-
late the func7 mental law, unless that con-
clusion is forced upon the court by unam-
biguous language As said by Harris j -
speaking for the court in People VS.. Super
visors of Orange, IL y. Y, 2S5, 24l: Be
fore proceeding TO annul. by judicial SEN
tence, what has been enacted by the law
making power, ii should clearly appear that
the act cannot be supported by any reason
able intendment or allowable presumption. -
on T~T-
Counsel for appellant say: I'VE do not
deny the power of the Legislature TO au-
thorize a grant that must of necessity be
monopolstic in Its nature; otherwise rail-
way franchises could not be granted at
ALL" 1t is, of course. competent for the
General Assembly TO make provision by
law whereby. in the grant of street-rail-
way franchise, there may pass with the