The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-05-06

cites Cne pfeceuenI OF Sucn QeleSaClOn
Of power by a legislative body to an
administrative agent as is furnished in
the experience Of states regulating rail-
road traffic within the state. Our own
state of Minnesota furnishes an excel
lent example. The power to regulate
| rates exists in the legislature. The ex:
| ercise of that power has been effected
| thru the administrative body known as
| our warehouse and railway commission.
| The exercise of this power by congress
| thru the interstate commerce commits
| sion is substantially similar in law, and
Mr.. Moody finds abundant authority for
the exercise of the power of fixing rates
thru this commission. 49,.
Existing and Future Rates.
He recognizes the distinction between
fixing future rates and determining the
| Justice of an existing rate. The liking
| of the future rate, as has been con-
tended, he regards as legislative act.
The determination Of the justice OF an
existing rate is a judicial act. Con-
gress, thru the interstate commerce com
mission. may fix rate the justice or IN
Justice of which may be determined by
the courts.
The opinion of the attorney general
indicates clearly what the attitude OF
the government will be toward this mat
ter of regulating interstate commerce,
even to the extent of regulating rates.
Much has been made OF late OF
| para graph in section 9, article l OF the
constitution of the United States,
Which declares that "No preference
shall be given by any regulation OF
commerce OF revenue to the ports OF
one state over those of another, nor
shall vessels bound to or from one state
be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties
of another' It has been assumed by
the friends Of the railroads that this
constitutional provision would make
the regulation Of rates by the govern
ment practically impossible upon any
other basis than that Of a fiat distance
tariff. The attorney general, however,
does not take that view. After showing
the source Of the authority vested IN
the national government over inter-
state and foreign commerce as having
been derived from article l, section 8,
which gives to congress the power ''tO
regulate commerce with foreign nations
and among the several states and with
Indian tribes,' he concludes that con-
gross may do many things by virtue Of
may have the practical effect OF pro.
noting the commerce Of the ports OF
one state at the expense, necessarily,
Of the ports Of other states without Civ
ing preference to those ports within
the meaning of this clause Of the con-
stitution. He says the test Seems to
be whether the action Of congress is a
state over those of another, or merely
a preference which results incidentally
from such action.' He thinks that if
! such preference is merely incidental it
is not in violation Of the constitution.
He cites, among other things, the action
of congress with reference to the I'M
| provement of rivers and harbors, the
erection of lighthouses and other ia.
cilities of commerce where undoubted'
! 1y preference, at least incidental, is
! exercised: but he calls attention to the
! fact that this provision of the consti
I tuition refers manifestly to the granting
I of privileges or immunities to vessels
I entering or clearing from the ports OF
= one state over those of another.
! Privileges in Common.
He quotes decisions Of the courts tc
4 show that such privileges and immuni
I ties, whatever they may be in the judg
B ment Of congress, shall be common anc
/ equal in all ports Of the several states
I but that that requirement does moi q
\ operate against any incidental ad
1 vantages that might possibly result
1 from the legislation of congress upo1
4 other subjects connected with commerce
and confessedly within it's power. II
other words, the port preferences which
it was desired to prohibit are only sucl
4 as would result from discriminatory
ton of vessels or the privileges and re
4 strictions which might be given or i'm
posed upon them or their freight.
port is not the city which is built abou
4 it, but the waterway itself, and regula
\ tons of commerce which are not regula
4 tions of the use Of the waterway itself
1 Mr.. Moody contends, cannot be con
b CT, hotvy &c
l However, for practical purposes, it ma,
\ be admitted that if any regulation o
. commerce hereafter made, should arbi
= trarily and directly prefer the ports o
one state to those of another, so far a
their port rights and privileges wer
- concerned, such regulation, would be dc
all legislation for the determination o
n rates will be reasonable, just and i'm
y partial, Mr.. Moody holds that if it b
claimed that rates conforming to thi
standard will conflict with the constitr
tion because they do not prescribe
uniform charge per ton per mile to an
from the ports Of the different states h
would have no. hesitation in expressin
ditions ard those growing out of the d
S velopmcnt Of the country, may max
different rates per ton per mile reason
J. able and just. The decisions of tn
n. courts establish the rule that the broat
est inquiry into all the varying bushes
. conditions may be undertaken for tn
IT. purpose Of determining what is just an
IS, reasonable, that congress will be han
2 % peredy by. no unreasonable limitation
be that determinations may be made O
Ter account of existing conditions is estal
et lished by the opinion Of the court in til
na Texas & Pacific Railroad company v
nd the Interstate Commerce Commission
ps where Justice Shiras said thu
i ier "charges must be reasonable; discrim
he nations must not be unjust; preferent
S; or advantage to any particular perso1
~. firm, corporation or locality must not /
It'll undue or unreasonable; which nece
on sarily implies that strict uniformity
i n5 not to be enforced, but that circur
A., stances and conditions which reasonab
lux men would recognize as affecting tt
,ye welfare of carriers and producers ma
at be considered. In fact, it has been IL
hit practice Of the supreme court to reco
f id nize such dissimilarity of condition
- and charges.
- The attorney general says in concl
sion: j, therefore, conclude that an
law for the fixing Of rates according
the standard of reasonableness, impa
TALLY and Justice or any action take
by subordinate administrative bod
in the execution of such a law woul
not be obnoxious to article i, section
paragraph s of the constitution, eve
if it resulted in dissimilar rates to al
from the ports of different states