Perth Amboy evening news., 1912-10-08
APPEAL IN CASE
OF COMMUTERS
Tic cts for Terminal Points
Goes Higher.
tFrom the NEWS Correspondent

(From the NEWS Correspondent
Trenton, Oct. 8:-The legal battle
over the question of the right of the
thousands ti commuters in New Ur-
sey to purchase tickets to such ter
minal points within the state as Jer-
sey City, Hoboken and Camden, must
be fought all over again, five Of the
railroad companies yesterday after
noon having filed appeals in the Su-
preme Court carrying to the Court
of Errors and Appeals the order of
the State Board of Public Utility
Commission, directing the company
to sell such tickets. The companies
who appealed were the Erie, the
New York. Susquehanna and West
ern, New York and New Jersey, the
Pennsylvania and the West Jersey
and Seashore. The efforts of the rail-
road companies to have the order set
aside will now be transferred to the
Court Of last resort, where there will
have to be a reargument and another
decision which will probably take
several months.
There is unusual interest in the
case at this and because the commu-
tors have carried their fight for low
er rates into the present campaign
and particularly In North Jersey are
displaying great activity, especially
on the legislative ticket, In an en-
deavor to get men elected to the
Legislature who will favor a law for
lower communication rates. Or for CIV
ing more power to the State Utility
Commission to enforce such q law.
The North Jersey commuters have q
we'll organized association to carry
on this fight and In Bergen county
have nominated for the Assembly
John W. Zisgen on the Democratic
ticket. Mr.. Zisgen is a lawyer that
led the Utility Board to issue the or
der.
The order Of the state board pro-
vided that each railroad company af-
fofding ~intrastate communication ser
vice, when request 10 made upon it
and proper payment Is rendered
therefore. must sell tickets for such
Communication service: and. further,
such companies must publish rates
for this communication service and file
schedules of such rates with the COM
mission. The companies tried to
have the order set aside in proceed
ings in the Supreme Court, but the
Supreme Court decision went against
them.
The grounds stated for the appeals
are identical In all the cases. Gener-
ally, it is held that the order made
by the State Board Of Utility Com
missioners vas without the jurisdic-
ton OF that body. The appeals also
raise the novel point that the Utility
Board had no power to make an or
der directing railroad companies to
establish rates for Communication SER
vice or special rates; that the board
had no power to make an order di-
recting the companies to establish or
publish any rates less. than the max
imum rate prescribed by law for the
TRANSFORMATION Of a single passenger,
and that the Board had no power to
direct the companies to sell tickets
for communication or special service.
The companies go further in their ap-
peal and claim that the board had no
power to make an order directing
them to file schedules of commute
ton or special rates with the board.
The companies claim that the Su-
preme Court erred In affirming the
decision OF the Public Utility Com
missioners and that the Court below
should have reversed and set aside
the decision and order Of the State
Board. 1t Is claimed that there was
no evidence before the Board nor
before the Supreme Court to justify
In 1ntra-state Communication service
from points in New Jersey to Jersey
City.
The other principal grounds upon
which the appeals are based are that
there was no evidence to justify the
conclusion of the board and of the
Supreme Court that the companies
by their failure to grant Communication
or special rebates for intrastate ira
vel between points In New Jersey and
Jersey City subjected the municipali-
ty or its inhabitants to any p~reiudiee
or disadvantage, that there was no
evidence to Justify the conclusion
that the rates then charged by the
companies were uniustly discrimina-
tory or unduly preferential.
The companies claim further that
the order under review, Is in vio-
lation OF amendments V and XIV of
the Constitution of the United States
and OF the State Constitution, In that
It deprives the companies OF their
liberty and property without due nro-
cess OF law. takes property for pub-
lie use without just compensation
and denies to the companies the
equal protection Of the laws. Anoth-
er ground given is that the order OF
the board Is an attempt to interfere
with Interstate commerce.