Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1906-01-04
SEEKING A Lo0pAoLE
What Railroad Attorneys Say
of Proposed Rate Law.
CLAIM 1T rs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Supreme Court May Divide on Parti-
san Lines-DcmOcrats Hold That the
Government Must Control Corpora
lions to Preserve People From Ra-
pacity of MonODOlfcs.
The railroad attorneys declare that
the proposed law giving greater power
to the interstate commerce commission
Is unconstitutional. The ground taken
is that it %confers the judicial function
of determining whether a given rate is
is not reasonable and the legislative
function Of establishing a rate in the
place Of n declared unreasonable
and that the two powers cannot be
used in combination.
The hair splitting Of lawyers is pro-
verbal, and the decisions Of the high
est court have shown a change Of mind
upon the part Of some Of the judges, or
as new members took the place of for
mer ones there has been a change Of
view as new conditions were forced
upon their attention. After all that can
be said for the legal lore displayed by
the judges Of the supreme court on
most issues presented to them, on
great constitutional questions the court
has usually been divided on partisan
grounds, according to the political lean
ings Of the judges when they were
practicing lawyers and before they
were promoted to the bench. The opin-
ions delivered on many constitutional
questions have been so difficult to de-
eide that the opinions have been mere
ly guesses at what the fundamental
law really intended.
We know that a majority of the SUI
preme court as now constituted have q
leaning for the corporations and for
what is known as the Hamiltonian the
Dry of the powers retained by the
states and those conferred upon the
federal government. The decision and
reversal in the income tax case is the
most glazing case Of guessing or parti-
san leaning that can be quoted.
The whole railroad rate legislation
will have to be gone over again in the
courts when the new law to control
rates is brought up for decision and the
question the judges will have to de
eide will be: Can the United States
control corporations or shall the cor
porations continue to control the gov
eminent?
The Democrats claim that the gov
eminent must control the corporations
to preserve the people from the rapac
ity Of the great combinations. The
corporations claim, and are supported
by the majority Of the Republicans
that to control railroad rates would
perhaps allow such low rates to be en-
forced as to virtually coniscate thu
property Of the corporations. But /
must be remembered that in all thu
proposed laws the railroads or the ship
pers have the right to appeal to thu
courts to preserve their rights, and i
a rate was shown to be confiscatory
would undoubtedly be set aside.
Under the present law many rate
continually conf1scate the property o
the citizen and great injustice is bein,
done by determinations against place
and individuals. The earning powe
Of many railroads has so vastly in
creased that large dividends are being
paid on watered stocks, and in SOM
cases much greater dividends are be
ing earned than it Is thought polite t
pay. Without giving the details o
these large earnings and dividends, tn
quoted price Of the common stock
mostly pure water-of many railroads
shows them to be selling for mucl
above par and therefore earning NOR
than the going rate of interest and,
the watered stock were eliminated, ca
pable Of paying enormous and usurl
Gus dividends IN the real investment.
Whatever the legal defense Of TIL
railroad corporations may be to reg
ulating rates, there is no equitable rea
son why they should not be controlle'
in the public interest. All the grea
railroad combinations are lawbreak
ers, for they have disregarded the anti
trust law. which declares for fines AM
Imprisonment to those who combine t
restrict trade.