Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-07-15
PAYMENT FOR ADVERTISING
Issues an Injunction Against the C..
I. and /. Company.
TEST OF THE HEPBURN Law
Views of the Court on the Question
of Compensation and
Other Points.

CHICAGO. July 15-''If it be lawful to
make the exchange of railroad transpor-
tation for advertising then 1t would De
lawful to do the same in every trans
action. 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. Kohlsaat in the United
States circuit court, from which the fore
going is quoted, the jurist enioined the
issuance of transportation by the Chicago.
indianapolis and Louisville Railway Com
pany to the publishers of Munsey's Mag
azine in exchange for advertising. The
decision was rendered in test case in
which the federal authorities filed suit
to prevent the carrying out of a contract
entered into in January, 1907. between
the railroad company and Frank A. Nun.
sey & Co providing for the issuance OF
trip tickets or mileage to the value OF
$500 In consideration Of certain advertise
ing space in the publication of the maya
zine company
The contract was alleged to be a Vlo-
lation of the Hepburn law.
Allegation Of Petition.
The petition charged that tho action OF
the railroad company In issuing such
transportation constitutes d violation OF
the prohibition against the acceptance OF
any compensation for transportation
greater, less or different from that
named in the published rates. The rail-
road company insisted that it received a
full money value. based on schedule
rates for the mileage or tickets issued,
and denied that it was committing a Vio-
lation of the law.
In passing on the question of compensa-
ton the decision says:
1.-THE question as to the value of the ad-
vertising is contested one. Manlfestly
there can be no fixed price placed on it.
The number of copies issued, the char
acter of its subscribers and very many
other questions enter into the estimate OF
say what its cash market value Is except
by comparison with other advertising
rates. 1t cannot be said that the evil
dence Is conclusive or even convincing on
why should the transportation be limited
as specified In the contract? 1t the maya
zine is paying $500 to the defendant why
does 1t accept transportation both OF less
and different value than 1t would accept
if it bought its tickets with money? 1t
seems TAR to conclude that either the
advertising is of less than cash value or
the advertisers are grossly imposed OH by
the railroad"
Cites Several Decisions.
After citing several decisions rendered
In somewhat similar cases Judge kohlsaat
says:
ut will 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 tickets
only so far as earned. In the mere mat
ter Of interest the rate would be less ana
different from that which Is published.
1T is essentiol to the spirit OF the statute
that the value Of transportation be nxeo
and certain. In no other way can IT pc
held to be exactly the same to all. II
one person may purchase 1t with adver-
Using, another with labor and another
with produce the value Of which is
matter of agreement between the parties.
how can it be said the schedule rate is
always maintained? Would not the rate
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 mer-
chandise at prices we may agree upon.
be it less or more than the market
prices. would seem clearly to constitute
condemned by the act. Some claim is
made that the governments contention
would exclude the use Of checks and
drafts and bills of exchange. This is
without weight. In practical business
usage these instruments pass for cash.
The action of the defendant is in disso-
nance with the letter and spirit of the
interstate commerce act
Notice of an appeal to the United States
Supreme Court was at once given by at
torneys for the railroad company.
The notice was filed in Judge kohlsaat'S
cour: by Z: G. Fields. vice president and
general solicitor of the Monon, following
the reading OF the opinion.