The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1906-02-16
BAN ON PASSES.
Present Law Forbids Railroads From
Favorinq Shippers, So IT'S Claimed.

st. Paul, Feb. 9.-Does Minnesota s
present law prohibit railroad companies
from issuing passes?
c. f. Staples of the railroad commits
sion believes that it does, but the stat
utes have never been construed OH that
point by any legal authority. Judge
Mills, chairman of the commission, does
not think the law covers passes. At
torney General Young has not eXamin
ed it thoroughly, but comedies that it
might be so construed.
1t is the old law of 1887, which Gre
ated the railroad commission, that is
cited as prohibiting passes. The law
passed last winted forbade railroads
from giving passes to shippers, and for
babe shippers to ask or receive them,
but did not touch other passes. The
legislature in fact distinctly refused to
abolish passes. 5ai. JGn.li o.. sfg
According to the Staples view, how
ever, pass is discrimination and an
unlawful preference, and is therefore
forbidden by the law of 1887 That act
covers the subject in two different sec
tions. In section 2, which is section $50
of the General Statutes of 1894, it says:
"All charges made by any common
carrier, subject to the provisions of this
act, for any service rendered or to be
rendered in the transportation of passen-
gers or property as aforesaid shall be
equal and reasonable, and every unequal
and unrea sonable charge for such service
is prohibited and declared to he unlaw
full. , ...,
1T shall be unlawful for any COM
mon carrier to make or give any UNI
equal or unreasonable preference or adj
vantage to any particular person, COM
pany, firm, corporation or locality, or to
subject any particular person, company,
firm, corporation or locality, or any par
ticular description of traffic, to any UNI
equal or unreasonable prejudice OF dis
advantage in any respect whatsoever.
In section >, which is section 3S3 of
the 1894 statutes, the act says: 'If
any common carrier, subject to the pro-
visions of this act, shall directly or in
directly, by any special rate, rebate,
drawback or other device, charge de-
mand, collect or receive from any per-
son or persons a greater or less COM
pensatio for any service rendered or
to be rendered, in the transportation of
passengers or property subject to the
provisions of this act. than it charges,
demands, collects or receives from any
other person or persons for doing for
him or them a like contemporaneous SER
vice in the transportation of passengers
or property, such common carrier shall
be deemed guilty of discrimination,
which is hereby prohibited and made
unlawful"
This law is still in force. Violations
are punishable by fine of not more
than $1,000 for each offense, which may
be imposed on the corporation or on the
official responsible.
Mr.. Staples believes the language of
this law broad enough to include passes.
"The legislature which passed the act"
says Mr.. Staples, "may not have had
passes in mind, as they are not men,
toned by name, but it intended to de-
stroy all preference and discrimination,
and if passes are not preferences to GER
tain persons, and determinations against
all others. do not understand the mean
ing of those words"
Attornew General Young says he would
be willing to assist i'll having the law
tested, if anyone wants to bring it up.
he was strongly in favor of the anti
pass law last winter. As passes are not
mentioned in the law, he thinks it a
serious question whether they are includ-
ed but the language of the statute Is
broad enough to cover about anything.
Baby Miller.
From Saturdays Daily.