OCR Text |
Show I Judge Kohlsaat Enters Decision De-cision Against Munsey Magazine Maga-zine and Railway Co. CANNOT TRADE SPACE FOR TRANSPORTATION Case Was Test One. and Will Be Appealed to U. S. Supreme Su-preme Conrt Ii - CHICAGO, July 15. "If it he law-ful law-ful to make tbo exchange of railroad transportation for n-dvertisine, then it would be lawful to do tho sarao in every transaction, and the railroad business might lawfully become one of bnrter and salo, limited only by tho demnnd " In a decision handed down today by Judge C. C. Kohlsaat in tho United States circuit court, from which the above is quoted, tho jurist enjoined tho issuance of transportation by the Chicago, Chi-cago, Indiannpolis & Louisville i Railway company to the publishers of Munsey s Magazine in exchange for advertising. The decision was rendered in a test easo in which the authorities brought suit to prevent the carrying out of a contract entered into in January, 190. between the railroad company and 1-ranK A. Munsev & Company, providing for the issuance of trip tickets or mileage to tho value of i'500 in consideration or certain advertising space in the publication publi-cation of tho magazine company, ino . contract was alleged to be a violation of the Hepburn law. The petition charges that tho action of tho railway company in issuing such transportation constitutes a violation of the prohibition against the acceptance accept-ance of any compensation lor transportation, trans-portation, 4 'greater or less or lilor-ent" lilor-ent" from that named m tho published r:itc. Tho railroad company insisted that it received a full money value, based on schedule rates, for the mileage or tickets issued; and denied that it was committing a violation. Value of Advertising. In passing upon the question of compensation, com-pensation, the decision says; "The question as to the value or the advertising is a contested one. Manifestly Mani-festly there can be no fixed price placed upon it. The number of copies issued, the character of its subscribers, and manv other questions enter the estimate esti-mate of its worth. It is, ihorcioro, impossible im-possible to sav what its cash value is, except by comparison with other advertising ad-vertising rates. It cannot bo said that the evidence is conclusive or convincing convinc-ing on this point. If it is taken at its each value, why should transportation bo" limited as specified in the contract? f the magazine is paying o00 to tho defendant, why does it accept transportation trans-portation both of less and different value val-ue than it would accept if it bought its tickets with money. It seems fair to conclude that either the advertising is of less than cash value or the advertisers adver-tisers arc grossb' imposed upon by tho railroad." , , .. . , After citing several decisions render-i render-i cd in somewhat similar cases, Judge Kohlsaat says: ''To sav to one man, 'ou must pay cash. and" to his competitor. 'You may pay in sen-ices or merchandise at prices we' mav agree upon,' bo it less or more than the market prices, would seem clearly to constitute such a difference in transportation as condemned by the act. Some claim is made that the government's gov-ernment's contention would excludo tho use of checks, drafts and bills of exchange. ex-change. This is without weight In practical business usage these instruments instru-ments pass for cash. The action of the defendant is in dissonance with tho letter let-ter and spirit of the interstate commerce com-merce act." Xotice of an appeal to the United States Supreme court was at once given by attorneys for the railroad company. |