The New York herald., 1922-07-09

cts for the season of 1921 with such a
requirement were In use on the Central
Railroad of New Jersey between New
York and Bradley Beach.
After these facts were shown. the
complainant on the record conceded that
the company needed protection.
.. The requirement that the purchaser
shall furnish the photograph to be
shown with the ticket as 1t Is presented
for use, that Is. that he should bear the
expense OF obtaining his own photo
graph as we'll as pay to the company
for the monthly ticket to be used by
him. Is provided for in the schedule
fled. 1t appears that the photograph
may be taken by any one selected by
the proposed passenger. Tho company.
however. for the convenience Of such as
might wish to obtain photographs for
this purpose. established photographer
at the Grand Central Station in New
York, who paid no rent and received
the entire proceeds of photographs made
by him for passengers His charge was
IS cents. and the photograph Is so
placed in the pocket holder furnished by
the company that the same photograph
may be used successfully each month
as the monthly tickets are obtained. for
period OF twelve months. The cost
per month to each such passenger is
therefore insignificant.
Under the evidence presented do not
think that the requirement Of the photo
graph to identify the person who ex-
clusively has the right to use the low
fare commutation tickets for distances
over which he Is to be transported is
unreasonable or unduly discriminatory.
Every such passenger is treated alike.
One may have more personal dinculty
than another in obtaining conveniently
the ticket. and perhaps it cannot be OBJ
tanned at moments notice. The charge
borne by the purchaser to obtain the
necessary photograph does not. In my
opinion. operate to give the company a
greater compensation for carrying the
passenger than the rate prescribed by
the schedule for such ticket.
The complainant has presented the
facts and the legal points very carefully
and very fairly. At the first impression
1t would occur to some people that such
requirement intimated reflection
upon the honor of one who might wish
to buy and use Communication ticket for
transportation by the railroad. and this
thought has no doubt brought about
considerable irritation over the matter.
On second thought, however, one must
realize that in q great populous COM
munity such as that In which people Of
the metropolitan district live the indi-
MI -tob e. Ill
own privileges and his own property
necessarily requires the Identification CT
the person in all kinds of personal and
business transactions perhaps many
times a day. We submit to 1t as one
of the burdens incident to living under
the advantages of such a community.
Such an Identification of a person Is
necessary. as We all know II We think
about it, to protect not only the company
but the citizens who bear their burdens
and pay, their bills from that small
number in proportion who are constantly
ready purposely or carelessly. to cheat
and defraud. ~
Complainant claims that the legal ten
der acts of the United States are vio-
lated by the requirement that a photo
graph be purchased as condition
precedent to the right to buy q COM
mutation ticket. The suggestion Is that
1t is necessary not only to tender to the
company the price OF the ticket but to
tender also the photograph to the COM
pany. and that this is a violation Of the
legal tender act. In my opinion the
essence of tender under the law is
that what Is so offered can be taken.
The photograph is not offered to or
taken by the company. and 1t is not In
tended that it should be. The photo
graph Is in no way a part payment for
the transportation which the company
undertakes to give.
I recommend that the complaint be
dismissed.
All concur.