Omaha daily bee., 1907-09-11
TWO.CENT FARE ACT INVALID
Philadelphia Common Pleas Court
Rules it Unconstitutional.
FIGHT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROAD
First state system to Attack Law and
Suit VIII BE Made Test In
Higher Court-Fight
Ahead.

PHILADELPHIA. Sept. 1O.--Judges Will
son and Andenried in common pleas court
this forenoon declared unconstitutional the
2-cent railroad fare law passed by the last
legislature. The case upon which the de-
cision was made will be at once taken 10
the state supreme court.
The 2-cent fare law was enacted by the
Legislature as result of agitation during
the last political campaign. all parties
pledging themselves in favor Of such legis-
latlon. The railroads. led by the Pennsyl-
vania and Reading, made a strong night
against the enactment, but both branches
OF the Legislature passed the bill with prac-
tically an unanimous vote. The act was
to go into effect October 1.
The Pennsylvania was the first to attack
its validity bringing a suit in the local
courts to restrain the county Of Philadel-
phia from collecting fines for violation OF
It's provisions. The hearing lasted nearly
week, and among the witnesses were
President McCrea and several of the vice
presidents OF the Pennsylvania railroad.
The contention of the company was that
the law was not constitutional. and that
the 2-cent rate was fixed without any In
vestigation on the part of the legislature
as to whether the railroads could make a
fair profit under the law, which the com
pany asserts II cannot do. All other rail-
roads operating in Pennsylvania have also
brought similar proceedings in various
counties of the state, but no decisions have
been rendered as IL is understood that the
Pennsylvania suit will be made the test
case IN the higher court
Holds Rate IL Unreasonable.
The decision of the court covers 10
typewriter pages. After declaring that
the Pennsylvania Railroad company is not
vested with any immunity. from the eX-
ercise of the power of legislature to regulate
rates. the court takes up the contention
of the company that the 2-cent rate is un-
reasonable. susttains the contention, and
grants the injunction asked for.
The court holds that the act is not to be
denied enforcement on the ground that
It extends to interstate commerce and thus
infringes on the province of the federal
laws.
THE act" said the court, "ls to be re.
garded as intended to apply only to that
part of the passenger business of the rail-
roads over which the legislative power OF
state regulation extends.
The conclusions are as follows:
We find that although with respect to
matters OF form no valid objection to the
law exists its operations so far as II re-
lates to the Pennsylvania Railroad company
for the following reasons:
j. As regulation Of the rates of fares
on the lines constructed by the plaintiff
under the act of April 13. 1886 between Har-
risburg and Pittsburg, and Pittsburg and
Erie the act violates an existing contract
wealth and so contrivenes article !, section
~, OF the constitution OF the United states.
As regulation Of the pa,Ints In,
the act under existing circumstances is un-
reasonable and contiscatory and by depriv-
ing the plssintiff Of its property without due
the constitution of the United States
Act NOn-COmDensatory.
g. Since the taking from the plaintiff OF
the profitable use of its property Invested in
| the interstate passenger business may be
regarded as taking quo ad hoe of that
property for public purposes. and no just
compensation is made therefore the act
violates article 1, section 10 of the con-
stitution of Pennsylvania.
a. Viewed as an alteration or revocation
of the plaintiffs franchise to establish and
enforce over its lines such rates as
! (within the maximum fixed by the act OF
April 10, 1S46) its president and directors
may deem reasonable, the act violates ar
ticle xvi of the constitution OF PENNSYLVANIA
because II establishes so low a maximum
business unremunerative, but provides no
compensation for the loss thereby occa-
stoned.
We accordingly adjudge that the act
cannot be enforced so far as concerns the
Pennsylvania Railroad company and that
| the county of Philadelphia should be re-
strained from demanding fines II the max
imum which this act attempts to estab-
lish be dsregarded by the plaintiffs.
Today's decision applies only to the
county of Philadelphia. In order to have
decision that will cover the state 1t is
the intention of the Pennsylvania company
to ask the supreme court to take action or
today's decision before october l, when the