Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1908-07-16
CASH FOR TICKETS
Railroads Cannot Trade Them for
Anything Else.
ADVERTISING CASE Is DECIDED
Judge Kohlsaat Holds Exchange Con-
tracts Are a Discrimination.
BARTER BASIS Is ALLEGED
transactions Would Be Limited Only
by Demand.
nays ACT OF CONGRESS IS PLAIN
Ruling Made In Case of New York
Publishers who Challenged Hep
burn Acts validity
on Point.
lays ACT OF CONGRESS IS PLAIN

CHICAGO, July Eff Il be lawful 70
make the exchange OF railroad rTanspor-
tation for advertising. then 1t would be law
full to do the same in every transaction, and
the railroad business might lawfully be-
come one Of barter and sale. limited only
by the demand
In a decision handed down today by
Judge c. G. Kohlsaat in the United states
circuit court, from which the above Is
quoted, the juript enjoined the issuance Of
transportation by the Chicago, Indianapolis
& Louisville Railway company to the
publishers OF Munsey's Magazine in eX-
change for advertising. The decision was
rendered in a test case in which the fed
eral authorities brought suit TO preven.
the carrying out of contract entered into
In January, 1907, between the railroad com
pany and Frank A. Munsey & Co. provid-
ing for the issuance of trip tickets and
mileage to the value OF 500 in consideration
o. certain advertising space in the publi-
cation Of the magazine company. The
contract was alleged to be violation Of the
Hepburn law. The petition charges that
the action OF the railroad company in issu-
ing such transportation constitutes a vlo-
lation OF the prohibition against the ac-
ceptanoe of any compensation for transpor-
that named in the published rates. The
railroad company insisted that It received
full money value based on schedules for
the mileage or tickets issued and denied
that was committing a violation Of the law.
Qdcst.on of COmDenHntiOn.
In passing upon the question of COM
pensation the decision says:
The question as to the value of the ad-
vertising is a contested one. Manifestly
there can be no fixed price placed upon
it. The number Of copies Issued, the
character OF It's subscribers, and very many
other questions enter into the estimates of
its worth. II Is. therefore, impossible to
say what Its cash market value Is except
by comparison with other advertising rates.
1t cannot be said that the evidence Is con-
elusive or even convincing on this point. II
y is taken at It's cash value why should
the transportation be limited as specified
IN the contract2 II the magazine Is paying
$500 TO the defendant why does 1t accept
transportation both OF less and difterert
its tickets with money. II seems fair to
conclude that either the advertising Is
OF less than ehsh value or the advertisers
are grossly imposed upon by the railroad.
Aster citing severel decisions rendered
in somewhat similar cases, Judge Kohlsaat
says;
It will be noted that the contract docs
not require that the advertising must have
been furnished before the transportation
advertiser TO call for mis- railroad tickets
only so far as earned lii the mere matter
OF interest the rate would oe less and
different from that which Is published
Intent OF Congress Plain.
There is no mistaki.g The trend OF the
law making ana constituting powers. Every
new step Is tending toward a most rigid
enforcement OF the vule that requires exact
equality IN the matter of rates When by the
Hepburn act the word different" was
ADDED TO the words greater or less" It Is
not unfair to assume tnat congress Intended
10 make the law more explicit and more
difficult to evade The plain intention Is
10 close every avenue against discrimina'
tior. Bearing this in mind the courts
have rot been and will not be disposed tc
hesitate In giving significance to changes
occur from time TO time. 1t Is essentia
10 the spirit or the statute that the value
Of transportation be fixed and certain. II
no other way can It be held to be exactly
the same to all.
II ore person may purchase 1t with adver
tising. another with labor, and another
with produce. the value OF which II
matter of agreement between the parties
Aow can II be said the schedule rate II
always maintained. WOULD not the rat
rest in the whini of the carrier? Such Il
lot the intent Of the law To say TO ont
nan you must pay cash" ard to his com
petitor, you may pay in services o
merchandise at prices We may agree upoI
be IL less or more than the market prices,
would seem clearly TO constitute such diff
ference in transportation as Is condemned
by the act SGne claim Is made that tn
governments contention would exclude IN
use OF checks and drafts and bills OF eN
change, This is without weight. In prac
teal business usage these instruments pas
for cash The action OF the defendant i
IN dissonanco with the letter and spirit
the Interstate Commerce act
Notice OF an appeal 20 the United State
supreme court was at once given by at
t,rnovs for the railroad conlpany