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

} (Fr0m the NEWS corresponding
: Trenton, Oct. 8:-The legal battle
3 over the question of the right OF the
d thousands of commuters in New Jfr-
sey to purchase tickets to such ter
minaI points within the state as Jer-
sey City, Hoboken and Camden, must
be fought all ove again, five or the
railroad companies yesterday after
noon having filed appeals in the SUI
preme Cour 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 W to the State Utility
Commission to enforce such a law.
The North JERSEY commuters have q
well organized association to carry
on this fight and in Bergen county
lho,o nominated Po- &ho .oroN1,
., John w. Zisgen on the Democratic
ticket. Mr.. Zisgen Is a lawyer that
led the Utility Board to issue the or
der.
4 The order Of the state board pro-
vided that each railroad company az
fording intrastate communication SER
vice, when request IL made upon 1t
8 and proper payment Is rendered
therefore. must sell tickets for such
t Communication service: and, further,
such companies must publish rates
0 for this communication service and file
8 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
It Supreme Court decision went against
II them.
l., The grounds stated for the appeals
II are identical in all the cases. Gener.
e ally, it Is held that the order made
e by the State Board Of Utility Com.
p missioners was without the jurisdic.
d ton Of that body. The appeals also
IS raise the novel point that the Utility
Is Board had no power to make an or
der directing railroad companies t
ID establish rates for Communication ser
I'd vice or special rates; that the boart
1t had no power to make an order di
recting the companies TO establish O
publish any rates less thai the max
lg imum rate prescribed by law for tn,
TRANSPORTATION of a single passenger
Id and that the Board had no bower t
err direct the companies to sell ticket
for communication or special service
a TIE companies go further in their al
x peal and claim that the board had n
a. power to make an order directin
them to file schedules of commute
lie ton or special rates with the board.
as The companies claim hat the ST
tv preme Court erred in affirming tn
ad decision of the Public Utility Com
o. missioners and that the Court belo,
should have reversed and set asid
e. the decision and order Of the Stat
Board. 1t Is claimed that there wa
NV ofioCASO DClOIo tlS bOdTu nc
he before the Supreme Court to justif
as in intra-state Communication servic
n from points in New Jersey to Jerse
City.
The other principal grounds upo
which the appeals are based are this
there was no evidence to Justify tn
conclusion of the board and of tn
10 Supreme Court hat the companfe
or by their failure to grant commutatio
or special rebates for %intrastate trt
In vel between points in New Jersey an
es Jersey City subjected the municipal
as ty or Its inhabitants to any prelude
a or disadvantage, that there was n
to evidence to Justify the eonclusio
a. that the rates then charged by tb
4. companies were ~untustly discrimins
rr tory or unduly preferential.
A. The companies claim further this
do the order under review, Is in vi,
be lation of amendments V and XIV {
Ia. the Constitution of the United State
and OF the State Constitution, In thu
1t deprives the companies OF the
liberty and property without due DR.,
cess OF law, takes property for pul
lie use without Just compensate
and denies to the companies II
equal protection of the laws. Anotl
L er ground given is that the order
the board is An attempt to interfe,
with Interstate commerce.