Court Opinion

ID: 9418302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:20:07.313889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:00.191091
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hughes,
dissenting.
The Supreme Court of the State held that the provision of the Federal act was not applicable to this case, and I think that the court was right. Congress did not concern itself with the possibility that prominent persons, or others, might steal a ride through the unauthorized action of some employee of the railroad company. Congress, was concerned with the well known abuse which consisted in the giving of passes, or free transportation, by railroad companies, and it directed its. legislation to that abuse. The provision is:' “No common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act shall, . . . "directly or indirectly, issue or give any interstate free ticket, free pass, or free transportation for passengers,” except as stated; and *398that “any common carrier violating this provision shall be de.emecl guilty of a misdemeanor, and for each offence, on conviction shall pay . . . a penalty ... and any person, other than the persons excepted in this provision, who uses any such interstate free ticket, free pass, or free transportation shall be subject to a like penalty.” Here, it was found that the engineer had no authority to give any free transportation to the plaintiff and I cannot but think that in this view .the defendant in error was outside the Act. The Supreme Court of the State said: “The common carrier did not issue any free transportation to this plaintiff, and he was not using any such free transportation. The engineer in charge of the locomotive pulling the passenger train, under no conceivable circumstances has any power to issue free transportation to any person, and we are unable to see the force of the argument along this line. . . . It is clear to us that the engineer was not authorized to carry plaintiff free, and it is also manifest that the Act of .Congress is not directed against acts of the character here involved.”
I know of no reason for disregarding the finding of the state court as to want of authority in the engineer, and it, was on this hypothesis that the court held the.Federal provision to be inapplicable. Aside from this ruling, it’ it is not suggestéd that any Federal question is involved.'
I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice McKenna concurs in this-dissent.