Evening journal., 1912-03-06
CITY LOSES
FIRST ROUND OF
TICKET FIGHT
Continued from First Page

Monaghaa's complaint did not allege |
that the discontinuance of strip tick
cts was unlawful or unreasonable.
The Court adds: 1T assumed, APP |
parently, without regard to chartered |
rights or the financial necessities OF
the traction company, that the public |
interests demanded that six full five
cent fares should be sold for twenty
Ave cents, and thereby ive-sixths OF a
cent be saved on each trip to those
who wished to invest twenty-five cents
at once inf fares. Doubtless, there are
many persons in the community who
would find it convenient or profitable
were the traction company to carry
them for fare of one cent or free, or
give them a bonus for riding on its
cars"
Judge Bradford determines the vari-
Gus questions Of jurisdiction Of the
Utilities Board and the Federal Court.
Tie says in part:
But the substantial inquiry on the
merits is whether the enforcement
of the order of the utility board would
or probably would contravene either
OF both of the provisions OF the four
teenth amendment, forbldding any
state to deprive any person Of life,
liberty or property without due pro-
cess of law, or to deny to any person
within It's jurisdiction the equal pro-
lection of the laws. IL is well set
tied that corporations are equally
with individuals within the protection
OF the fourteenth amendment with re-
Bpect to their property Subject TO
legitimate exercise of the police
power, no state can deprive them Of
their property without due process
of law, or dony them the equal pro-
lection of the laws. or, as It has been
ludicially paraphrased, of the protec-
tion of equal laws.
THE utility board is an instrument
tality of the state Of Delaware for
the accomplishment Of public pur-
poses and its acts in and about mat
ters committed to IL are the act of the
state.
Monaghan having made his COM
plant and the traction company hav-
ing put in its answer, il was incum-
bent upon the utility board in the
performance of its duty, judicial I'M
its preliminary stages and legislative
at The end, to observe strict impair
tiality toward the parties"
Judge Bradford reviews and dis
Rects the aflidavits submitted IN the
case. He says:
III the utility board and its counsel
did not knew what was .he' proper
procedure 10 adopt time would have
been we'll sFen' duly considering
the subject and formulating such
rules and regulations as might be
necessary for an orderly investiga-
tion of the case before them, and it's
just determination upon the merits
instead of precipitatoly plunging
ahead in the dark The court does
not perceive that any eXigency which
could demand or justify summary and
irregular methods in dealing with SO
important a matter as an adjustment
of rates to be charged by the traction
company"
Guyer's affidavit in connection Will
those of Crosby. Scott and Monaghan
fully establishes the fact that the
utility board, acting under the advice
OF its council, absolutely refused Z,
take into consideration what tho trac
tion company deemed and elaine,
TO be important rights acquired b,
and secured to it under it's charter
and the leases of the lessor compan
les, the court sets forth.
lt was the right of the traction
company TO have its claim of char
tered power to charge a straight five
cent fare. made and insisted on in
good faith. considered by the utility
board, whatever might have been the
conclusion thereafter reached by the
board as to the existence of such
power the Judge says. II Is difficult
to conceive of treatment more arbi.
trary, Injurious or ruthless than that
TO which the traction company was
subjected by the utility board.
malefactor taken red-handed il
the commission of crime would have
had a constitutional right to a meas,
ure of protection and consideration
denied to the traction company. Tn,
board. Influenced and practically con
trolled by its own counsel, instead o
maintaining an attitude OF judcia
and legislative impartiality as be
tween Monaghan and those he ma.
be supposed to have represented ant
the traction company, became III
prosecutor and displayed a spirit q
partisanship and hostility towar
that company from the beginning {
the end OF the hearings on August
and September 1, 1911.
Yet il does not appear that ther
was any discourtesy or want OF r,
spoct on the part of the traction con
pany toward the utility board. or an
act or conduct of the former intend'