The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-07-16
PASSES FOR ADVERTISING Railroads and News papers Lose Out. VIOLATION or HEPBURN LAW It Is Unlawful to Make the Ex- ~ change. Chicago, Indiapapolis and Louisvtiie Rsilroad |. En,oined From Issains rransportasion to Pubnshers ef
 Munsey's Magazine.
 
VIOLATION OF HEPBURN LAW

Chicago, July 15.--'If 1t be lawful to make the exchange of railroad trans portation for advertising. then 1t would be lawful to do the same in every transaction, and the railroad business might lawfully become one of barter and sale. limited only by the demand-@
 In a decision handed down today by Judge C. c. Kohlsaak in the United States circuit court from which me foregoing is quoted, the jurist en5oin- ed tue Issuance Of transportation by the Chicago, Indianapolis and Louis vile railroad Company to tiae publish CTS of Munseys Magazine in exchange for advertising. The decision waa ren- dered in a test case in which the fed eral authorities brought suit to prevent the carrying out of contract enter ed into in January 1907, between me railroad company and Frank A. Nun sey and Company providing for the Issuance If trip tickets or mileage to the. value of $500 in consideration of certain advertising space in the pub Ilication of the Magazine Company. The contract was alleged to be q yto- lation of the Hepburn lak.
 In passing upon the matter of cofn~ pensation the decision. says:
 ..As the question of the value of the advertising is a contested one, mann. festly there can be no. fixed price plaes ed upon it. The number of copies is- sued, the character of it's subscribers, and very many other questions enter Into the estimate of It's worth. It is therefore impossible to say what its cash market value Is except by conpar. ison with other advertising rates. It cannot be said that the evidence is conclusive or even convincing on this point If 1t is taken at Its cash value. why should the transportation be limited as specified in the contract If the magazine Is paying $500 to the datendant. why does it accept trans portation both of less and different val- ue than it would accept If t bought ifs tickets with money7 It seems fair to conclude that either the advertising le of less than cash value or the ad- vertisers are grossly Imposed upon by
 Gfter citing several decisions render. Kohlsaat says Tt win be noted that the contract does not require that the advertising must have been furnished before the transportation Is given There is no restriction upon the advertiser to call for his. railroad ticket only so far as earned. In the mere matter of inter- est. the rate would be less and diner ent from that which. Is published. There is no mlstaking, the trend of the law making and construing powers. Every new step Is tending toward a
 most rigid enforcement of the rule that requires equality in the matter of rates When by the Hepburn act the
 INnrd different was added to the words greater or less" 1t is not unfair to assume that congress intended to make the law more explicit and more difficult to evade. The plain intention Is to close every avenue against dis crimination. Bearing this in mind, the courts have not and will not be dis posed to hesitate in giving significance to changes in the language of the statutes as they occur from time to time. It is essential to the spirit of the statute that the value of transporta- ton be fixed and certain. In no oth- CT way can 1t be held to be exactly the same to all. If one person may pur- chase 1t with advertising. another with labor, another with produce, the value of which is. a matter of agreement be- tween the parties, how can 1t be said the scheduled rate is always maintain ed? Would not the rate rest on the car- rier2 Such is not the intention of the law.
 Some claim Is. made that the govern ment's- contention would exclude the use of checks and drafts and bills of exchange. This Is without weight. In practical business usage. these instru- ments pass for cash. The action of the defendant S in dissonance with the letter and spirit of the Interstate com- merce act"
 Notice of an appeal to the United States Supreme Court was at once giv- en by attorneys for the railroad com pany.