The Iowa plain dealer. [volume] (New Oregon, Howard County, Iowa) 1867-1895, 1883-11-08

Important Decision Affecting tho Town |
Law, nnd Covering tnter-stat Cnm.
mcrcc-~N0 Power Given tn Stntcs la llS
Proportional lsntcs on Through Traffic
Such u Course Would Operate tnIu-
riousiy on the TrMfiic OF Nci9hboring
commemorative subject Il Ia Its
Nature National and Must lse Handled
oy Congress. -
Tho opinion of Judge Mecrary In thu casc
of William kaciser ", tho Illinois Central
Railway company, IN which the plaintn
sought to recover for ovcrcharpcs raid oh
freight shipped from points In Iowa To points
without tho state, discusses two questions OF
law;
/. Whether IN. acts Of 1874 and ism of tho
Iowa Legislature NJ applied to through ship
ments Of freight upon lincs extending into or
thruuRh several States must not he held 10 r..
late to asnhIect which istn Its nature national or
which admits Zone uniform system or plan Of
regulation.
q. Whether. II the rnwer Of the state to rass
such an act I've conceded, II does not necessarily
include the nower tn discriminate against the
conmerce Of other States.
u either uf these questions must be an-
ewered ntllrMatisely, then thu statute In 81
fur as II relates 10 through shipments over
Interstate lines Is In violation OF tho Fed
eral Constitution. The court II OF tho orin-
ion that both questions must hc 80 answered.
II seems very obvious TINT tho regulation OF
transportation OF merchandise over a line
extending, II mas b. from the Atlantic 10 tho
Pacific occan IL II subject which IL In It's mn.
ture national. II IL 80 because II necessarily
concerns tho people OF tho whole country, and
Ii beyond the legislative power af single
state. II Is also apparent that such trans
portation not only admits Of. hut requires
uniform system or plan OF regulation. The
plaintiff Ii not understood ms denying these
propositions, hut II II insisted that each
state over whose territory line of inter-
state railroad passes may fx or limit the
charges To hc made for tho carriage vi a cur
10 upon TINT part of the route which lics
within Its own Jurisdiction. Tho consacra-
tlon OF this proposition involves dc,crmina-
/ ton Of tho second question above stated
| viz: whether the statute In question con-
/ etrucd ~ authorizing tho regulation Of
charges within this state may not affect
charges madc for carriage in other states.
THE QUESTION ~ ANOTHER fonN.
1 To state tho question In another form. II Il
l this: Can each Of the states through which
/ = cargo must rass In going--ior example.
/ from nes Moincs to New York clty-~nx the
4 rrorortionalr charge which shall he nude by
i tho carrier for the distance within its own
1 tcrrtoryy Such limo would pass through
4 portions Of tho States OF Iowa, Illinois, In.
/ diana. Ohio. Pennsylvania aud New York.
1 How can Iowa tx the amount u b. paid Tor
/ tho carriage from ncs MuincS IL the state
/ limo without indirectly affecting the iNtes to
| hc charged In other Statcss
II must be horne In mind that the power 10
regulate includes not only the power tn r.
ducc, hut thu power to increase charges. II
one OF the States upon such a limo can nN
tho charges for carriage within Its own terri
tory. what II tn prevent II from authorizing
It's own carriers IL demand and receive an
undue nn1 unreasonable proportion OF Tho
gross amountg IL the proposition eantcndcsi
for hc admitted. what Ii there To prevent the
three States, through which tho cargo must
frst pass ON its way tn New York, from cN-
acting more than opehalf OF the charge FOR
/ the entire routeg ur. to state the same qnes-
tion in another way. why may not the tivc
States thronsh which thc cargo would pass
hcforc reaching the boundary OF New York
exact In tho aggregate the whole OF 4 reason.
able charge for tho entire route. leaving
nothing Tor the carrier within the stare OF
New York. and. since M State law can have
any extra territorial force. Is il not clear that
the attempt To enforce Tho statutes Of eaoa
of the several States. In 81 fur as the carriaae
| within such State Is concerned, would lead n
conflicts and disputes which no State authors
" would Ia competent to adjust aud de,
ferMines
These considerations lead inevitably 10 n
conclusion not only that such commerce IS
the subject only of national control aud
regulation, hut that any aiieMft In aeSalNe
upon u single State III. power To regulate il
In part would necessarily give To such Stsae
the right to discriminate against otaes States
of the Union.
Ii il we'll known that ono of thu chez
reasons which eaus.i the Constitutional cnl,-
seastaa IL Insert the Commercial clause in
the constitution af the United Sta'es was the
belief that II the power In resalatc conn
meree among the States was not taken eN-
elusisely into the hands of the national 6os.
ernMeat riralrseS and iealou>ieS would arise
An,ang the states similar To ,hose which had
existed under the OLD Confederation. which
would lead practically te the destruction q,
Interstate eommerce, ana 1t Mas regarded a
specially important that no power of th,
Legislature af amy Que State Ia interior,
with commerce or trade In any other Stat,
should he recognized rs existing.
The conclusion Il, therefore,. that the stat
ute IN question, IL held IL apply IL mtor~Stat,
commerce. IS in violation ot the cons,itatie,
of tho United States. This lew Is sunrorte.
hv the recent decision of the supreme Gour
of this state sCas,an ~. Illinois Central lail
road company. saarai, In which the act nov
under consideration MAS held Ia b. uneaasti
tutional.
rnE SUPREME carRf'S rRs,snsNr.
VII | were In doubt upon this subject
concludes the judge, Il should not hcsi,at,
IL fellow that ruling. | am no, aware taa
the Federal courts have within the course y
our history undertaken to ensaree Stat
J statute which has been held void hs the s,l
preme judicial authority OF the State.
should hesitate long hefore undertaking /,
enforce in this tribunal any net of the Stat
Legislature which the supreme court OF tn
State has held for any reason tn hc null mn,
, voil. 10 da 81 would hc IL give to suitor
who can come here an unjust advantage ass
the citisenS af the State Who arr compelled i
submit their rights TO the determination q
tho State courts.
ras DECISION IN nR,Ef.
Judge Mesrary,s opinion may hc hricil
summarized rs follows
: l. That transportation by railroad il con,
meree
= The transportation fsem a rlaos In IN
State IL 4 place in another STATE il intcr-Stas
commerss
. 4 IL tsN the charge for such transportatlo
Il to regulate conlneree
, 4 Asiata,e fixing er limiting tho charges O
such transportation l. a regulation ~ ,ummerc
among States
4. The POWER to regulate such commerce hs
1 longs exclusively To Congress-.
4. States eannot adopt any regulation Mhic
| gees 10 or max operate inluriauSls 10 the com
I mcrec of other States.
4