Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-06-27
JUDGE POWERS
AS RATE EXPERT
Some Interesting Arguments in
Famous TiCket-SoalpIng Case
In u. S. Court.
HEAVY LOSSES BY RAILROADS.
Roads Contend That Brokers Have
Defrauded Them out of Thou
sands Of Dollars

Judge John A. Marshall Of the UuIt'
Cd States distrlc, court yesterday ot-
ternoon took the case OF the ticket
scalpcrs under Amusement No time
for rendering the decision was SET Tie
case 90 question was that brought hy
the Rio Grande and the Southern Pa
cine 20 secure a permanent Injunction
against oscar Groshel and 10 other
defendants. who are In the ticket broH-
erare business restraining them for all
time from dealing IN railroad tickets f..
sued by the companies who are plain
tids 10 this case.
m Utah there are now -wo cases Of
similar character pending in the .ei.
eral courts and four In the state courts
involving the same defendants and dii-
fersnt railroads The fling Of these
suits apparently Is the outcome OF con-
ceried action on the part ~ railroads
throughout the United States To date
the railroads have been successful IN
a majority Of the suits brought
The Biiterman case IN New orleans
ls 10 he carried 10 tho United States SUI
profnc court and this undoubtedly viii
settle the question one way or the
other
INTERESTING ARGUMENTS.
The arguments before Judge Marshall
yesterday We're decidedly interesting
both from the standpoint 81 the rail-
roads and the public Atty. Waldemar
Van Colt. representing the Rio Grande,
made one point and hammered away on
4. II was the sole contention that N
date las enectually won similar cases;
the claim that the ticket brokers I'M
lawfully deal I'm railroad tickets which
are CONFERENCE.-The
LOSSES BY RAILROADS
Aaidayits were introduced sworn 20
Nv l. 4. Benton. general agent Of The
Passenger department Of the Denver &
Rio Grande who affirmed that his road
lost iast year $4,000 through the op.
eratl lns ~ ticket brokers. and General
Passenger Agen, ID. T. Burnley OF the
Oregon Short Line who placed tho
losses of tNo Southern Pacific through
the same causes at $4,000.
Counsel asked for q blanket injunc.
tion covering an Of the brokers.
JUDGE POWERS FOR DEFENSE.
Judge O. w. Powers for the defense
made a brilliant argument During his
remarks De commended that railroad
tickets purchased by an individual we're
HIS own property and that a man had a
right to dispose Of them as he saw ~.
10
from SO doing then the court exceeded
iis authority and proceeded 10 enter
the field Of legislation.
Secondly he affirmed that the matter
81 ticket brokerage had been IN exist
ence for years and had been recognized.
The railroads be said. had delayed
their protests too long and could not
consistently ask Tor relief
Thirdly, the business Of ticket brok-
ing had been encouraged IN the past,
IN fact the railroads themselves had
been accused of selling the brokers'
tickets on numerous occasions.
DELICATE SUBJECT.
Then Judge Powers stirred up deli
cate subject from the standpoint OF
The railroads. lie asserted that the
railroads had entered into an illegal
combination and could not consistently
come into court with clean hands and
ask that the brokers be restrained.
The combination. which was a viola
ton of the Constitution OF the State
81 Utah and the Sherman law. was
for the purpose OF arbitrarily fixing
rates and the plaintiffs now came into
court and asked thai court Of equity
20 uphold them iu their unlawful act.
The defense insisted that II It was
guilty Of violating laws. IL should be
handled by the government
DISSEMINATION CITED.
In the claim that the railroads were
discriminating against Utah. Judge
Powers cited number Of cases. II
Was claimed that there was a con-
spiracy o. avoid an competition and
the price ~ tickets had been arbltran-
~ fixed 90 the loss Of many thousands
~ dollars annually 10 citizens Of salt
Lake and ogden. By combining and
agreeing not 90 sell second-class tickets
from these two cities 90 the coast
points. compelling thereby the person
who travels from Salt Lake 10 any
point upon the Pacific coast 10 nay
nearly Tho Same rate Tor iransp0rta-
lion as Is paid by travellers from points
IN Colorado The railroads were fractur-
ing the law. ln contention the rate
OF i3i 30 from salt lake TO san Fran
cisco was cited. whereas complainant
who transports passengers Boo councc-
tiou with other railroads with whom
Il has consplrcd and agreed hauls
passengers from Colorado points 90 the
coast Tor 1885, and from Missouri river
points. much further east, for 50. Tho
fact that The rate from Missouri river
points 90 Salt Lake is S215o and from
Colorado points 90 salt Lake Is 81.
was dWeit upon showing that other
passengers bound through 10 the coast
Were hauled the same distance Tor re-
speCtively $50 and s. So or dis.
elimination against salt Lake in the
case ~ every passenger hauled from
the Missouri river ~ SO. and for each
from Denver OF SO 60