The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1915-11-28
DECISION REVEALS
. P0RTER'S SECRETS
Commerce Commission Finds Man
Who Sued Pullman Company,
Sold $500 Worth Of Tickets
Some Days.
COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED
Commission Finds That Porter Failed
to Back Up Claims He Made
About Non-Redemptlon
Of Tickets.
COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED

A little idea of how extensive the
1ob or sleeping car broker in a sum-
mer resort Is, may be cleaned from
the report OF the interstate commerce
commission In the findings OF the
case OF Frank Reinert VS.. the Pullman
company. Reinert, according to the
official findings, stated that some days
his purchases Of tickets amounted to
$500. He said he was dependent on
! tips offered him by the guests, as the
lob carried no salary with it.
Reinert claimed In his petition
against the company that it refused to
redeem three unused tickets for ac-
commodations in sleeping cars, and he
/ asked for reparation in the amount of
$3.50, the amount expended. The
commission dismissed the case for
want of evidence.
| The commission in it's report said
! During the summer Of 1913 COM
plainant was head porter for the
| Maplewood Hotel at Maplewood. in
the White mountains. NJ H. BY com
plant filed August 81, 1914, he alleges
that defendant has Disseminated
against him unjustly by its failure to
redeem three unused tickets for ac-
icommodations on its sleeping cars
from certain New Hampshire points t,.
New York and Boston Reparation is
asked in the sum of $3.50
| complainant as representative of
the Maplewood Hotel, at times order
led transportation and Pullman accom-
modations for guests of the. hotel, en-
itering the cost Of the tickets on hotel
books as charges against the guests.
complainant also engaged extensively
in the practice Of securing accommo-
jdations for various hotel guests on
his own account. Some times his
purchases amounted to 5000 per day.
He made no direct charges for his
services, relying upon tips for his
compensation. Complainant kept no
systematic or permanent record of his
transactions, and was dependent upon
his memory OF the facts here. The
three tickets involved are said to
have been purchased and paid for by
icomplainant in his individual capacity
at the request Of the guests, and to
have been delivered to the parties for
whom they were purchased, who re-
lpafd to complainant his advances.
Finding they could not use the accom-
modations, the ultimate purchasers re-
turned the tickets to complainant with
the request that he have them ex-
changed. for other accommod tons or
that he have them cancelled and Sc
cure other accommodations"
| The. report goes on to state that
the porter failed to make the ex-
changes and purchased the other ac-
commodations desired. He claims to
have notified the offices two days be-
fore train departure of cancellation of
accommodations.
Complainant states that assurances
were given him by each Of the three
agents from whom accommodations
were purchased, that the tickets would
be redeemed If mailed to defendants
Chicago office. All three tickets are
said to have been mailed to defend
ants Chicago office about one week
after their valid dates but not to have
been redeemed.
Not Contrary to Rules.
defendants tariffs make no pro-
vision for redemptions Of unusued
tickets. IT'S instructions to agents
authorize redemptions where tickets
are presented prior to departure of
trains for which they are good. It
has also been the defendants prac-
itice under certain conditions to re-
deem tickets after the departure of
trains for which the tickets we're good,
upon presentation by the original pur-
Ichasers. Complainant attacks Meth
er defendants rules nor its practices
and has adduced no evidence that
others have been accorded different
treatment under similar circumstances
than the treatment accorded him. The
particles for whose benefit the tickets
Involved we're purchased, are not
complaining and complainant has
lbeen unable to give their names.