The morning journal-courier., 1908-07-16
ALL PASSES CUT 0FFI Railroads Cannot Issue Trans portation on Adver-
 tising. VIOLATES HEPBURN ACT Decision Rendered in Circuit Court at Chicago in Test Case by
 Munsey's.

Chicago, July 15,--"If 1t be lawful to make the exchange of railroad trans portatlon 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 decision handed down today by Judge c, c. Kohlsaat In the United States circuit court from which thes above Is quoted, the jurist enjoined the issuance of transportation by the Chi- cago, Indianapolis and Louisville Rail- way company to the publishers of Mun- sey's Magazine in exchange for adver- tlsing
 The decision was rendered in test case In which the federal authorities brought suit to prevent the carrying out of a contract entered into in Jan- uary, 1907, between the railroad com pany and Frank IA. Munsey X Co.,, pro- viding for the issuance of trip tickets or mileage to the value of $500 in con- sideraticn of certain advertising space III llt VI tHt lldkdLllt Q company.
 The contract was alleged to be vio- laticn of the Hepburn law.
 The petition charged that the action of the railroad company in issuing such transportation constitutes a violation of the prohibition againet the accept ance of any compensation for trans ttnrfnftan or 1arc ent" from that named in the published rates. The railroad company insisted that 1t received a full money value, based on schedule rates for the mileage or tickets issue.l and denied that 1t was committinq violation of the law
 In passing upon the question of compensation the decision says:
 The question as to the value of the advertising Is contested one. Manl- festly there can be no fixed price plac- ed upon it. The number of copies issued, the character of It's subscrib- CTS, and very many other questions enter into the estimate of its worth. It Is therefore impossible 10 say what it's cash market value is except by comparison with other advertising rates It cannot be seen that the evi- dence is conclusive or even convincing on this point If 1t is taken at It's cash value why should the transporta- ton be limited as specified Tn the con- tract? If the magazine Is paying $500 to the defendant, why does 1t accept transportation of less md different value than it would accept if 1t bought It's tickets with money? It seems fair to conclude that either the advertising Is of less than cash value CT the ad- vertisers are grossly imp osed upon by the railroad.
 After citing several. decisions. rem dered in somewhat similar cases, Judge Kohlsaat says:
 It will be noted that 'he 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 tickets only so far as earned. In the mere mater of inter est the rate would be less and different from that which Is published.
 There is no mistakng the trend of the law making and constructing pow CTS Every new step is tending to- ward most rigid enforcement of the rule 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,m it is not unfar to assume that con- gress intended to make .he law more iait The plain intention is to close every avenue against discrimination. Bear ing this in mind, the courts have not been. and will not be, dispos to hesi- tate in giving significance 10 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 transportation be fixed and certain. In no other way can it be held to be exactly the same to all If one person may purchase it with advertising, another with labor, and another with produce the value of which is a matter of agreement be- tween the parties, how can 1t be said the schedule rate is always maintain ed? Would not the rate rest in the whim of the carrier? Such is not the intent of the law. To say to one man, You must pay cash" and to his com petitor, You must pay In services or merchandise at prices we may agree upon," be it less or more than the mar ket prices, would seem clearly to con stitute such a difference in transporta- tion as Is condemned by the act
 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 Is in dissonance with the let ter 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.