6 tion shall apply to "the issuance of mileage, excursion or commutation passenger tickets," while authorizing the issuance of such tickets, does not relieve the carriers as to rates charged from the requirements of reasonableness and impartiality, which are prescribed in other parts of the act. They must be sold impartially to all the public who apply for them, and cannot be sold to a particular. class of persons, e. g. commercial travelers, at lower rates than are charged to others. The fact that mileage tickets sold to a particular class of travelers contain a special contract limiting the liability of the carrier, will not justify a lower rate than is charged the public, where the offer of the lower rate is not made to all who will accept the special. contract. Mileage, excursion and commutation passenger tickets being issued for different purposes, the price for each is determined from special considerations. The exception of the officers and employees of railroad companies as to the issue of passes does not include their families.9 8 1 In re Indian Supplies, 11 Inter. Com. C. 15. 2 In re United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries, 1 Inter. Com. C. 21. 3 Hays v. Pennsylvania Co. 12 Fed. Rep. 309. 4 In re Disabled Soldiers and Sailors, 1 Inter. Com. C. 28. 5 Louis Larrison v. Chicago & G. T. R. R. Co. 1 Inter. Com. C. 147. 6 Louis Larrison v. Chicago & G. T. R. R Co. 1 Inter. Com. C. 147. 7 Louis Larrison v. Chicago & G. T. R. R. Co. 1 Inter. Com. C. 147. 8 Associated Wholesale Grocers of St. Louis v. Missouri Pacific R'y Co. 1 Inter. Com. C. 156, 9 Ex parte Koehler, 31 Fed. Rep. 315. § 1076. Mandamus to compel movement of traffic, etc.—"(New section). That the circuit and "district courts of the United States shall have tariffs of rates, fares and charges as provided in that section, it should be subject to the writ of mandamus to be issued by a United States circuit court, in the name of the people of the United States, at the relation of the Commission. Similar provisions have been held to be remedial rather than penal. It has also been held that a court may determine whether a station is necessary in a town, and may enforce its erection by mandamus.* 1 This section was added by the amending act of March 3, 1889. In the original act, section 23 provided an appropriation for the purposes of the act, and section 24 designated when the act should go into effect. 2 United States v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co. 40 Fed. Rep. 101 (1889); 2 Inter. Com. C. 617. 3 Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. 531. 4. State v. Republican Valley R. R. Co. 17 Neb. 647, affirmed 18 Neb. 512. See State v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 19 Neb. 476. |