New-York tribune., 1907-09-11
PENNSYLVANIA LAW HIT
rs NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.
p r. X. UTins Suit Against T1co-
Cent Rate Legislation.

philadelphia Sept 10.-Judges Wilson ana Au
senred in Common Pleas Court to-day declared
.;-,,,;o,,ol tho two-cent railroad fare law
.ssed bv the last Legislature The case upon
,,aich the decision made will be taken 10 tiie
C.ste supreme Court at once
The tvyo-cent fare law was enacted by the Legis-
,.,,re as q result of agitation during the last
oli,icaI campaign all parties pledging themselves
a. favor Of such legislation The railroads. leo oS
80 PENNSYLVANIA and the Reading. MADE a stiois
erb+ against the enactment of the law pul oo'h
t,a,cres Of the Legislature passed the Dill WIN
,,-arrfcalIv unanimous vote Inc Ia" was ~ ~
ir-o effect on October /
The Pennsylvania was the first to attack 'lie
,,u. bringing suit in the local courts TO RESTRAIN
che county Of Philadelphia from collecting te l'le
g. violating The provisions of the act Inc mean
a. =, the case lasted nearly week. and among
che witnesses were President McCrea ana seNeiai
= the yice-presdents of the Pennsylvania nai'-
-oad The contention of the company "ds 'ia'
=. law was not constitutional and that the U"o-
-. ms fixed without any investigation by
-, recisiature as to whether the railroads coud
ri, . fair profit under the la" ~hlch ''.e 80
any asserts it cannot do All other raiIoe
sag in pennsylvania have also nrous", &c.
,,r,c..dings in various counties oi the 0'a'e' 80,
= zaoieions have been rendered. as It IS seheraIE
Understood that the Pennsylvania suit VIII We
made the test case in the higher court
DECISION OF THE COURT.
The decision Of the court takes up llo w -.
-e1 r9ges After reviewing its hml'alioHS - a.
,7-es.-r case and declaring the feIiisSi -, -
Furoa5 Coropanv is not vested with any iflliuiiil
nan ris. ~ the mower Of the Legislature
- regulate rates" the court takes UP ''e
t,o, of the company that the tWo-oenl la'e = -.
-eeeonehe s,lstains the contention ana giants 49,
Injunction asked for
Continuing. the court says
--b.r. reroains now TO be disposed Of the ques
beibe~ ire act IS 10 he denied enforCeIlets ~
on the ground that by reason ~ rIe commerce
s55 4b9s fnfrnges the province OF dhe f the the
@ era Jaw - fs Of course not be disputed that
,Fee1 ,,-der its constitutional power 10 IeSuII
coGameFf6e aEnIston of interstate railroad rates
the LEGISLATURE Of Pennsy lFarla haS ,jsiaive J in
tent TO exceed constitutional rights ana 10
late fundamental law IS never 10 oe esatisfed bv
co1+rarT construction. statute Is 20 o9 - ~
o sfE9eo Il, n sT 9ateria The act with which We
are concerned is. therefore, TO be resaLueu .
1ar bI,siness Of the railroads over which the leg-
aye power Of regulation ogfs5 sS5eRa5h %h fnp ferstae
passenger traffic 20 be insusceptinle OF SEP pa
valid for the reason last suggested. ,.. e,d
Upon the whole case We are OF oll[l9h l3 =, as its
title aud other matters Of form no valid ooJecton ION
70 the Law E sn1svT5na fxi5s 1S Raroad COMPANY
iectionable on constitutional sronhds lo' "e i''
THE CONSTITUTIONAL. GROUNDS
! AS regulation by the Legislature Of 5 the Ta.e5
OF fares for passengers on the R1@s 5, = 1sas he
tee e7e Ha~TishTrg and Pttsburg and Pttsburg and
Erie. the act violates an existing fontIScs e n
venes Article ]. Section 10. of the Constitution OF
2 As regulation Of the plaintiffs intrastste
passenger business in its entirety, the act under
existing circumstances is unrea naole ana CON
hscatory. and, by depriving the plaintiff Of us
Amendment il Of the Constitution Of the United
8 Since the taking from the plaintiff, of the
profitable of its property invested in the ntra-
se 5r S 5 hoe o tst @ f pu5c pur
poses and since no Just compensaEon Is N llao F
the constitution Of Pennsylvania
1 Viewed IS alteration revocation of the
Plaintiffs franchise TO establish and enforce over
the lines of roads that are now operated by II and
since May g. 1855 such rates as within The maxlrna
fixed BY the second proFiso Of Section z OF the
may deem reasonable the act under consideration
violates Article XVI Section 10 Of the constitu-
lion Of Pennsylvania because il does Injustice 10
the incorporators Of the Pennsylvania Railroad
Of fare for the carriage of passengers 10 render
tat orahch OF Iile paIhlIII pusIntss
tive, but providing no compensation for the loss
thereby occasioned.
LIMITATIONS OF DECISION
M snnot be Eenfdoed so f far e as G oo4es % the S
Pennsylvania Railroad Company. and that the
county Of Philadelphia should be restrained from
demanding fines and attempting by action to collect
n mem. u ne nlsHIiluf %flch @ IIla aCt aIIeinP's
Under the head of plaintiffs requests for find
lngs Of fact" the court afirns that:
ng T ehod f qssd ID as6sTans 5h eRensss of
business is the correct one.
That the percentage realized under existing rates
Of fare upon the cost of the property, is not
fair or unreasonable. and that the percentage under
the new law would not be fair or properly compen-
That cost Of conducting railroad business for
several years has been greatly and constantly in
Creasing
That a reduction in intrastate rates will most
probably compel corresponding reduction in inter
state rates
That the average rate per mile for carrying In
trastate passengers does not now exceed two cents
Il mile.
That reduction Of rates would not be likely lead
20 increase Of business.
That uniform rate Of cents could not. in
al roba ahility he obtained from all passengers and
is neither advantageous to the public nor just To
fhe coInoans-
That there is no evidence that the Legislature
Investigated the matter before enacting the law.
L, the defendants requests for findings. the court
refuses the following:
II determining whether the MAXIMUM rate. as
specified in improper, all the trafflc and
receipts OF the plaintiff within the state ana sub
sected 10 the control Of the Legislature, must be
aiken into consideration The passenger uafnc
frnot be segregated and considered without refer
from the express and trc4gnt traf1c
nd a u other sources Of corporate earnings
Oncials Of the Pennsylvania Railroad were
pleased when they learned that the new law had
been declared unconstitutional None of them
cared to comment publicly the decision, how
ever -,
The decision rendered to-day applies only 10 the
COUNT of philadelphia The law becomes opera.
cover the entire state il is the intention OF lne
T'enreylIaria Railroad TO ask the supreme Court
10 take action on to-day's decision before mat
date.