Argument for Appellant. serted merely as an enumeration of a class of persons and things not within either the letter or spirit of the interstate commerce act, which it would be lawful to discriminate in favor of without its being so provided in section 22." This emasculates the entire act, and renders it utterly insignificant and worthless, except in so far as it may turn out to be useful in securing the enforcement of the obligations established by the common law. Neither in England nor in the States in this country where equality clauses are inserted in the statutes, has this position been adopted. Great Western Railway Co. v. Sutton, ubi supra; Atchison, Topeka &c. Railroad v. Denver & New Orleans Railroad, 110 U. S. 667, 684. In the latter case it was held that these English statutes added new remedies and rights of action securing equality of charge which did not before exist, according to this English view of what was the common law.. This court has, in a recent case, repeated what it has in substance often held before, namely, that after a statute has received from the courts its final and settled interpretation, the construction becomes, in effect for purposes of interpretation, a part of the statute itself as much as if such interpretation were embodied in the words of the act; and if that statute is adopted by future legislatures after its meaning is thus judicially settled by the highest courts of the country, then it will be assumed and presumed by the courts, in construing. that new law, that it was the design of the legislature that the statute should have the same meaning under the reënactment that the courts had given to it before the reënactment. German Bank v. Franklin County, 128 U. S. 538; Douglass v. Pike County, 101 U. S. 677, 686, 687. Applying that rule to this case, the equality clauses in the English statute had, when the Interstate Commerce Act was enacted, received this interpretation: "When it is sought to show that a charge is extortionate, as being contrary to the statutable obligation to charge equally, it is immaterial whether the charge is reasonable or not; it is enough to show that the company carried for some other person or class of Opinion of the Court. persons at a lower charge, during the period throughout which the party complaining was charged more under like circumstances. Great Western Railway Co. v. Sutton, ubi supra. It must therefore be assumed that the equality clause found in section 2 of this act is a law; that it is a law which means what it says, and that it does peremptorily require equality of charge for substantially "like" service, rendered under substantially "similar" conditions, and that it is a new and additional obligation created by statute that can never be whistled down or contracted away as against the public, according to the discretion of the carrier and the party with whom he deals. And it being already established that there is no substantial difference in the service rendered on the sale of one ticket to transport ten persons on a given train, and that rendered on the sale of one ticket to transport one person on the same train, which would entitle the company to make a dif ference in the rate, that would seem to dispose of this branch of the case. Mr. John K. Cowen and Mr. Hugh L. Bond, Jr., for appellee. MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the court. Prior to the enactment of the act of February 4, 1887, to regulate commerce, commonly known as the Interstate Commerce Act, 24 Stat. 379, c. 104, railway traffic in this country was regulated by the principles of the common law applicable to common carriers, which demanded little more than that they should carry for all persons who applied, in the order in which the goods were delivered at the particular station, and that their charges for transportation should be reasonable. It was even doubted whether they were bound to make the same charge to all persons for the same service; Fitchburg Railroad Co. v. Gage, 12 Gray, 393; Baxendale v. Eastern Counties Railway Co., 4 C. B. (N. S.) 63; Great Western Railway Co. v. Sutton, L. R. 4 H. L. 226, 237; Ex parte Benson, 18 South Car. 38; Johnson v. Pensacola Railway Co., 16 Florida, 623; Opinion of the Court. though the weight of authority in this country was in favor of an equality of charge to all persons for similar services. In several of the States acts had been passed with the design of securing the public against unreasonable and unjust discriminations; but the inefficacy of these laws beyond the lines of the State, the impossibility of securing concerted action between the legislatures toward the regulation of traffic between the several States, and the evils which grew up under a policy of unrestricted competition, suggested the necessity of legislation by Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the several States. These evils ordinarily took the shape of inequality of charges made, or of facilities furnished, and were usually dictated by or tolerated for the promotion of the interests of the officers of the corporation or of the corporation itself, or for the benefit of some favored persons at the expense of others, or of some particular locality or community, or of some local trade or commercial connection, or for the destruction or crippling of some rival or hostile line. The principal objects of the Interstate Commerce Act were to secure just and reasonable charges for transportation; to prohibit unjust discriminations in the rendition of like services under similar circumstances and conditions; to prevent undue or unreasonable preferences to persons, corporations or localities; to inhibit greater compensation for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line; and to abolish combinations for the pooling of freights. It was not designed, however, to prevent competition between different roads, or to interfere with the customary arrangements made by railway companies for reduced fares in consideration of increased mileage, where such reduction did not operate as an unjust discrimination against other persons travelling over the road. In other words, it was not intended to ignore the principle that one can sell at wholesale cheaper than at retail. It is not all discriminations or preferences that fall within the inhibition. of the statute; only such as are unjust or unreasonable. For instance, it would be obviously unjust to charge A a greater sum than B for a single trip from Washington to Pittsburg; Opinion of the Court. but if A agrees not only to go but to return by the same route, it is no injustice to B to permit him to do so for a reduced fare, since the services are not alike, nor the circumstances and conditions substantially similar, as required by section 2 to make an unjust discrimination. Indeed, the possibility of just discriminations and reasonable preferences is recognized by these sections, in declaring what shall be deemed unjust. We agree, however, with the plaintiff in its contention that a charge may be perfectly reasonable under section 1, and yet may create an unjust discrimination or an unreasonable preference under sections 2 and 3. As was said by Mr. Justice Blackburn in Great Western Railway Co. v. Sutton, L. R. 4 H. L. 226, 239: "When it is sought to show that the charge is extortionate as being contrary to the statutable obligation to charge equally, it is immaterial whether the charge is reasonable or not; it is enough to show that the company carried for some other person or class of persons at a lower charge during the period throughout which the party complaining was charged more under the like circumstances." The question involved in this case is, whether the principle above stated as applicable to two individuals applies to the purchase of a single ticket covering the transportation of ten or more persons from one place to another. These are technically known as party-rate tickets, and are issued principally to theatrical and operatic companies for the transportation of their troupes. Such ticket is clearly neither a "mileage" nor an "excursion" ticket within the exception of section 22; and upon the testimony in this case it may be doubtful whether it falls within the definition of "commutation tickets," as those words are commonly understood among railway officials. The words "commutation ticket" seem to have no definite meaning. They are defined by Webster (edition of 1891) as "a ticket, as for transportation, which is the evidence of a contract for service at a reduced rate." If this definition be applicable here, then it is clear that it would include a partyrate ticket. In the language of the railway, however, they are principally, if not wholly, used to designate tickets for transportation during a limited time between neighboring Opinion of the Court. towns or cities and suburban towns. The party-rate ticke upon the defendant's road is a single ticket issued to a part of ten or more, at a fixed rate of two cents per mile, or a dis count of one-third from the regular passenger rate. Th reduction is not made by way of a secret rebate or drawback but the rates are scheduled, posted and open to the public a large. But, assuming the weight of evidence in this case to be tha the party-rate ticket is not a "commutation ticket," as tha word was commonly understood at the time of the passage of the act, but is a distinct class by itself, it does not necessarily follow that such tickets are unlawful. The unlawfulness defined by sections 2 and 3 consists either in an "unjust dis crimination" or an or an "undue or unreasonable preference or advantage," and the object of section 22 was to settle beyond all doubt that the discrimination in favor of certain persons therein named should not be deemed unjust. It does not follow, however, that there may not be other classes of persons in whose favor a discrimination may be made without such discrimination being unjust. In other words, this section is rather illustrative than exclusive. Indeed, many, if not all, the excepted classes named in section 22 are those which, in the absence of this section, would not necessarily be held the subjects of an unjust discrimination, if more favorable terms were extended to them than to ordinary passengers. Such, for instance, are property of the United States, state or municipal governments; destitute and homeless persons transported free of charge by charitable societies; indigent persons transported at the expense of municipal governments; inmates of soldiers' homes, etc., and ministers of religion, in favor of whom a reduction of rates had been made for many years before the passage of the act. It may even admit of serious doubt whether, if the mileage, excursion or commutation tickets had not been mentioned at all in this section, they would have fallen within the prohibition of sections 2 and 3. In other words, whether the allowance of a reduced rate to persons agreeing to travel one thousand miles, or to go and return by the ame road, is a "like and contemporaneous service under |