Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-10-30
Text of Judge McCrary.s DecisIon.
Assuming such to be the law, the ques

Assuming such to be the law, the ques-
ton remains:
l. W neither the act in question, if applied to
through shipments of freight upon lines extend
ing into or through several States, must not be
neia 70 relate to subject which is in its nature
hatohal or which admits of one uniform system
or plan of regulation?
2, Whether, if the power of the State to pass
such an act be conceded, it does not necessarily
include the power to Discriminate against the
commerce Of other States?
If either Of these questions must be answered
afirmatyely, then the statute in so far as II re-
iates TO through shipments over interstate lines,
is in violation of the Federal Constitton. | am
OF the opinion that both questions must be so
answered. 1t seems very obvious that the regu-
latlon OF the transportation of merchandise over
a line extending, II may be, from the Atlantic to
the Pacific oceans, is subject which is in its ma
ture national 1t is so because it necessarily con-
Germs the people of the whole country. and is be-
yond the legislative power of any single State.
1t IS also apparent that such transportation not
only admits Of, but requires uniform system or
pan of regulation. l do not understand the
plaIntlh counsel as denying these propositions.
but he insists that this State may regulate charges
upon so much OF the route as lies within its own
territory. In other words, the contention of
counsel Is that each State over whose territory
line OF interstate railroad passes, may
hx or limit the charges to be made for
the carriage of cargo upon that part Of
the route which lies within its own iurisdiction
The consideration of this proposition involves a
determination OF the second question last above
stated, namely, whether the statute in ouesiion.
construed as authorizing the regulation OF
charges within this State, may not affect charges
made IN earrias9 N ether states. To state the
the States through which cargo must pass. in
going, ior example, from Des Moines to New
shall be made BY the Carrier for tbe d;ssdncn Wn1en
within its own territory? Such a line would pass
through portions of the States of Iowa, Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York
How can Iowa fix the amount to be paid for the
carriage from Des Moines to the State line with
ont lndIrectly affecting the rates to be charged in
other StatesE 1t must be borne in mind
that the power to regulate includes, not
Only the power to reduce, but tho power
TO increase charges; If one of the States upon
such line can fix the charges for carriage within
its own territory, what is TO prevent it from au-
thorlzlng It's own carriers to demand and receive
an undue and unreasonable proportion of the
gross amount? If the proposition Commanded for
be admitted, what is there to prevent the three
states through which tho cargo must first pass on
one-half of the charge for the entire route? Or
70 state the same question in another way, why
;yl may not the hye States through which the
York, exact, in the aggregate, the whole of n
reasonable charge for the entire route, leaving
nothlnG Tor the carrier within the State of
New York? And since no State law can have
any extra-territorfal force, is it not clear that
each of the several States, in SO far
as the carriage within such State is concerned,
state authority would be competent to adjust and
determine? These considerations, think, lead
inevitably to a conclusion, not only that such
commerce Is the subject only of national control
and regulation, but that any attempt to CeyoIve
@ upon a single state the power 10 regulate il in
part would necessarily give to such State the right
TO discrIminate against other States of the
Union. 1t Is well known that one of the chief
reasons which caused the Constitutional Conven-
ton to insert the commercial clause in the cOnsti-
tuition of the United States was the belief that if
the power to regulate commerce among the States
was not taken exclusively into the hands of the
national government, rivalries would arise among
the States similar to those which had existed un-
der the old confederation, which would lead prac-
tlcally to the destruction of interstate commerce
and 1t was regarded as specially important that
no power IN the Legislature of any one.State to
interfere with commerce or trade in any other
state would be recognized as existing. My con-
clqslon is therefore, that the statute in question
II held to apply to interstate commerce, is in vio-
latIon oil the constitution of the United States In
this Wow am supported by the recent decision of
the Supreme Court of this State Carton rs Illi-
nois Central Railroad Company, supral, in which
the act now under consideration was held TO be
unconstitutional. III were in doubt upon the
subject should not hesitate to follow that ruling
| am not aware that the Federal courts have ever
in the course of our history undertaken to force
State statute which has been held void by the
supremejudicial authority of the State.