Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1907-09-11
%EV
Pennsylvania
RATE LAW
IS VOID
RAILROAD SCORES IN
STRUGGLE WITH STATE
Two CentSa Mile Not Sufficient
to Provide Profit in PaSSen-
ger Transportation Court
Decides,

Philadelphia, Pa. Sept. 1O.-Judges
wilson and Audenreid, of the court
of common pleas, this morning de-
clared unconstitutional the two-cent
fare law passed by the last legisa-
ture The case upon which the deci-
sion was made will be at once taken
to the state supreme court.
Inc tWo-cent law was enacted by
the last legislature as the result of
agitation during the last political cam
paign, all parties pledging themselves
In favor of such legislation.
The railroads, led by the Pennsyl-
Vania, and the Reading, made a
strong fight against the enactment, but
both branches of the legislature pass
ed the bin with a practically unanl-
nous vote. The act was to go into
effect on October /. The PENNSYLVANIA
was first to attack its validity. bring
ing suit in the local courts to restrain
the county of Philadelphia from coll
lecting fines for the violation of its
provisions. That hearing lasted near
ly a week, and among the witnesses
were President McCrea and several of
the vice presidents of the Pennsyl-
vania railroad. The contention of the
company was that the law was not
constitutional, as no inquiry had been
made on the part of the legislature as
to whether the railroads could make
"a fair profit under the law, which the
Pennsylvania company asserts 1t cam
not do
All the other railroads operating In
Pennsylvania have also brought SINH
lar proceedings in the various coun-
ties of the state, but no decisions
have been rendered, as It is under
stood that the Pennsylvania suit VIII
be made test case In the higher
courts
The decision of the court covers ITO
typewriter pages. After declaring
that the Pennsylvania Railroad COM
pany is not vested with any immunity
from the exercise of the power OF the
legislature to regulate rates. the court
takes up the contention of the COM
pany that the two-cent rate is un.
reasonable sustains the contention
and grants the injunction asked for.
The court holds that the act Is not
Ito be denied enforcement on the
ground that II extends to interstate
commerce and thus infringes on the
province of the federal laws. THE
act" says the court lis TO be regard
ed as intended to apply only to that
part of the passenger business of the
railroads over which the legislative
power of the state regulation ex-
tends"
The conclusions are as follows: eve
find that although with respect to
matters Of form, no valid objection to
law exists, its operations, as 1t re-
lates to the Pennsylvania Railroad
company is Objectionable on constltu-
tional grounds for the following rea-
sons: First, as the regulation of
tae pf papac IN Ifpao pauptvnafaI tV
plaintiffs under the act of April 13.
1876, between Harrisburg and Pitts
burg. and Pittsburg and Erie. the act
violates the existing contract between
the plaintiff and the commonwealth
and so contravens article /, section
10, of the constitution of the United
States.
Second-As a regulation of the plain
tins interstate passenger business in
its entirety, the act under existing
circumstances, is unreasonable and
confiscatory and by deprivlng the
plaintiff of It's property without due
process Of law, the act violates amend
ments of the constitution of tho
United States.
"Third-Snce taking from the plain
tlff of the profitable use of its prop
erty invested in interstate passenger
business may be regarded as the taxi
Ing quo ad hoe of that property for
public purposes and since just CONF
pensatlOn Is not made, therefore the
act violates article /, section 10. Of
the constitution of Pennsylvania.
"Fourth-Viewed as an alteration
or revision of the plaintiffs franchise
TO establish and enforce over its lines
such rates as (within the maximum
fixed by act of April 13. fS46) its
president and directors may deem
reasonable. The act violates article l6
OF the constitution Of Pennsylvania,
because II establishes so low a maxi
mum fare as to render the plaintiffs
passenger business unremunerative.
but provides no compensation for the
loss thereby occasiOned."
I'VE accordingly urge that tAo act
cannot be enforced so far as Il con-
Germs the Pennsylvania Railroad COM
pany, and that the county OF Phila-
delphla should be restricted from de-
manding fines II the maximum which
this act attempts to establish be dis
regarded by plaintiffs"
Today's decision applies only to the
county OF Philadelphia. In order to
have a decision that will cover the
state, II is the intention of the PENN
sylvania company to ask the supreme
court to take action on today's deci-
sion before October /, when the law
Is ordered TO take effect.