The daily morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1883-1899, 1896-04-08
WITNESSES MUST
NOW TESTIFY
United States Supreme Court De-
cldrS In Favor OF Interstate
Commerce Act,
A REVIEW OF TIE DECISION
Railway Age Takes a Seaside Position 10
regard to the Aattsr- Hallway Aea
Shoald Not Violate the Law
Ualust Discrimination.

In commenting upon tho recent decision
OF tho United States supreme court Ia
tho brown interstate commerce case, the
Halfway Ago. OF Chicago, very pertlncnt'
~ uayn,
Tho opinion VI the United States Hn'
prumu court IN tho Brown Interstate
commerce case. In which tho court. by
a majority Of hyu 10 four, upholdH the
validity OF the legislation which oOnnpola
witnesses to tcatlfy whether their trhu'
mony viii have a tendency 10 |inorlminate
themselves or not. II a matter OF the
FIRST Importance 10 the rullwaya an wen
az TO tho people Of tho country mat
tho halfway companies In tho Ions run,
however. will hayu puy eauae TO rcHrei
Tho decision. W. 10 not believe.
rhu Interstate law has faults
enough. hut thsru IL no fault In ihorq
Of it, provisions which ain. ana aim
truly. 90 atop unjust determinations me
10 maintain stability Of rates u II no
idin pfoluhainn when the Joint frame
agreement. or tho aFruumpt Of any othnT
association. ripimn 10 have for Ito NIB
iuct tho enforcement Of tho Interstate
commerce law The iruHc ASSOCIATIONS
and tho interstate commerce law are In
truth striving FOR tho same ends ana
they oonnict only when tho Interstate
act 10 Heif-contradictnry ami
includes provisions which are moi IN
harmony with the general tenor or thr
act Whatever tends 10 make tho dc.
m%oTaiiaalinn OF faten moro dlr1oult and
90 prevent tho concession ~ secret ad.
vantagus 10 favored shippers II = bless
ing 10 tho railways Whatever assists
the interstate commerce Law or tho con.
mission TO further thrae ends, rycn
though II may bv forced ON tho always
against their Will and IN spite of their
opposition. 10 for their good In 80 far
as this decision. by making detection
and conviction easier. may act AH n dc.
torFvnl to railway managers and uafnc
ofnciala from the granting Of secret con-
ceusinns to shippers. II will be a bSne-
nciai thing for tho railways as a whole,
II 10 no better or more wholesome for
a railway company-or for a railway
man In his oniclAl capacily-to brrak
the Law than II II for an Individual 20
do 90. Whatever assists In compelling
compliance with tho Law. whether the
Law br good or had. N Tor the general
welfare and railway men can arord.
lees perhaps Than any other class In the
community. 60 put themselves In tho po'
sitioh Of depiorlns any decision Of tho
supreme court which has for its sole OBJ
Jset tho uphoIding Of the iaw and tho
making iuffactionA thereof more easy OF
punishment None but a criminal has
cause 10 rejoice that a Law cannot be
enforced,
In tho particular case In point. more
over. whenever a railway man violates
the Law by giving q secret rebate ar adj
vantage. al the same time that no
breaks the law no also breaks faith with
his fellows. Il h not a calamity TO the
railways that railway men should DO
restrained from being diahoneH, TO their
friends. any morr than II can be n cal
AmllV that they should not BE- allowed
TO bo iAw.hrrakrrH,
A. a decision IN law the 'aar II vrry
interesting and Il II probable that Il Is
In opposition to the expectation OF the
majority OF tho lawyers ~ the country
The Immunity OF a witness from the
necessity ~ giving testimony which
might tend TO incriminats hlnrolf II a
principle which has itA roots very deep
IN tho human laVo OF Individual liberty.
and whrn the court Hampers with u,
or 10 speak more accurately. sets a
precedent for exceptions 10 Il. Il IN
touching on u fundamental principic OF
Law which hhH TO he handled dell -atcly.
The decision was only affirmed 10y q ma.
JuutN ~ one. aud undoubtedly the con.
trolling influence with the majority OF
tho court was that principle which they
enunelato IN their opinion. via. that TN
stead Of 30, king for excuses for holding
acts OF the legislative power TO ho void
by reason 81 their conflict with the oon-
t~titutlon OF with certain supposed funda-
mental principles OF civil, liberty. the
effort should Ice made TO reconcile them
n possible and not to hold the law valid /"
Tho court. ~ on many former occasions,
has been guided ~ much by the larger
considerations OF public policy aH by the
%ncrupulouH Interpretation Of nice points
" constitutional Jaw. These aspects
Of the decision. however, arc chiefly IN.
tcrcsting to tho student " Law and social
science, and the railway mans main IN.
tcrrat In them IN hin lnteruht ~ u citizen.
In 80 Tar IA railway mon ave a special
Interest In the decision which n not
shared by all c%itlEona, II II only 10 the
Cxtont that they will hereafter be more
likely to be- punished II they turn crlmi-
nails, rhoso who do not commit OF.
fcnaca Hglinpt the law need huvs no po-
ouliar concern with the matter, The
railway companies might loWtrully hnNo
preferred thcdcclsion to go the other
way, for then the power OF the inter
state N commission would have
beer practically destroyed; further lrpls-
lntion on nuw lines wOuil have been
rendered necessary. phd therNin would
probably have arisen the opportunity
for obtaining such other notifications
Of the existing lAws-as In the matter OF
pools" as the railways require, Set
ting the considerations OF those posal-
hllitics aside. however, and looking only
ut the actual crcct OF the decision upon
the situation ~ II now exists. there Is
no rcnaou on the part OF the railway
for dinnlny. II ought to make collation.
OF the luw more dinlcult md less fire.
qucat. ana In doing 20 II win tend to
maintain rates and ia strengthen rather
than cmbnrrnss the operation OF tho
traffic associations.