The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-07-16
VIOLATION OF
THE RATE LAW
Unlawful for Railroads to Give
Transportation in Exchange
for Advertising.
OPINION OF FEDERAL JUDGE
CASE WILL Be CARRIED TO The
SUPREME COURT.

Chicago. July IA-"H II be lawful TO
make the exchange q railroad transpor-
tasion for ADVERTISING. then it would be
lawful 70 do the same In every Jrensac-
iion and the railroad business might law
tsIlly become one Of barter and sale. lin
lied only or the demand"
In a decision handed down today by
Judge g c. Kohlsaat in the United
States circuit court from which the above
Is quoted. the jurist enjoined the issu-
ance Of transportation by the Chicago.
Indianapolis & Louisville Railway com
pany 10 The publishers OF Hunseys Mag
A-ine In exchange for advertising.
A Test Case.
The decision was rendered in a test casa
IN which the authorities brought suit 10
prevent the carrying out OF : contract
entered into in January. 1857 between the
relro2n company sad Prank A. Mum
eey & Co. providing for the Issuance OF
trtp tickets or mileSge 70 the value Of
Nsn In consideration OF certain a6vertis-
1lne company The contract was slleged
20 BE violation Of the Hepburn law.
The peutics- charges that the action Of
the railway company IN Issuing such
transportation constitutes . violation OF
the prohibition against the acceptance OF
Rny compensation for Transportation
greater or less or different from that
named IN the published rates The rail-
road company insisted that 10 received
fGu money value based on schedule
rates FOR the mileage OF tickets issued
and denied thar u was Committing VIC
istiea o. the law.
Opinion Of the Court.
IN PSsssns upon the question Of eorpen-
sation the decision says.
Tie Question as 10 the vslcs % the
advertising Is = contested one Manifest
" there can Be no fixed price placed upon
II The number OF copies issued. the
character OF It's subscribers and many
other questions enter the estimate OF
IS worth II Is. therefore, Impossible 10
say vhas its cash value Is except by
comparison with other advertising rates
x cannot be said thSt the evidence IS
conclusive or convincing on this point II
. Il taken al its cash value. why should
transportation De limited as specified in
the contrast II the magazine IS pay
ing So 70 TIE defendant why does IL
sccept transportation both % less and
different value than Il would accept II
. bought its tickets with money II
seems FAR 10 eoneiEde that either the
advertising Is OF less IhSn cash value or
the advertisers are grossly imposed 1pOn
By ths railroad"
Argument Of the Court.
After citing several decisions rendered
szst SAYS,
II Niu hc 1O,e5 that the coaSract does
not require that the advertisement uaEst
not D. furnished before the TRANSPORT
toa = given There j. no restriction upon
The parJ ~ TIRE advertiser % call Tor his
raiiroSo tickets only 50 <R- IS earned
In The mere matter q interest the rate
would be less and different sroun that
vhich : pss6.
There : no installing The trend OF
re law making and constituting powers.
AVe-N new step Is tending toward ! most
rigid Enforcement q The rglle that Re-
cstres exact equality in the matter Of
rates When by the Hepburn act the
word 1ttereut' Was added tO the words
greater or less u : not unfair u as
sumo thar congress intended 70 make tire
LAW rao-e es7l.ciS ard more difficult 10
eNG6e- The intention s 20 close every
avenue % discrimination Bearing this
n r..nd. the courts have not been and
Viii not be disposed - hesitate IN Civ
ing significance 70 changes IN the Ian
guags 81 the statutes as they occur from