The morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1899-1930, 1906-12-25
LAW OF RECIPROCAL
DEMURRACE
TEXT or ATTORNEY MUiRs oPlN.
ION ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL
iTy or THE PROPOSED LEols.
LATioN--cLosELy REASONED.

attorney for the Oregon and Wash"
ington Lumber Manufacturers. Assoc
citation. regarding the proposed Recip-
rocal Demnrrage Legislation.
Oregon and Washington Lumber
Manufacturers Association, Cen
. tlemsn:
y have been able 10 consider the
question OF the power OF the State Of
Oregon TO enact legislation providing
for reciprocal demurrage charge APP
plying to railways and shippers. Suf-
flcicntiy to state. that. In my judgment,
this may be done without violating the
interstate commerce clause OF the
Federal Constitution. The Supreme
Court OF the United States In Hous-
ton & Texas G. Railroad Company W..
Maycs declared certain sections OF the
Texas railway law fixing reciprocal
demurrage charge void because the
law ns framed was nm invalid exercise
OF the police power OF the state, three
of the justices dissenting from the
majority opinion. The Texas statute
provided for a charge Of s25 per car
a day for each days delay In furnish
Ing or unloading cars. the charge 10
begin TO run from time specified,
and permitted OF no excuse for fail
ure 10 furnish cars ordered except In
cases OF "strikes and other public ca
iafnities." The limited reasons specl-
iied aa valid excuses for the omission
TO furnish cars ordered caused the Su-
premc Court to declare the law on
these points invalid.
In tho course Of Its decision the
court admits the right OF the states to
make reasonable rules with regard to
the method Of carrying on interstate
business not in conflict with regula-
tions upon the same subject enacted
by Congress, and provided, also. that
such rules shall be consistent with
the general requirement that inter-
state commerce shall be free and un-
obstrue,ed.' and provided that such
rule shall not amount to a regulation
OF such commerce The court de-
clined to define the limits OF this pow
er OF regulation and In so doing used
these words:
The exact limit Of lawful legisla-
ton upon this subject cannot. in the
nature OF things be defined. II can
only be illustrated from decided cases,
by applying the principles there
enunciated, determining from these
whether In the particular case the rule
be reasonable or otherwise
"The Supreme coar, OF the United
States, In Chicago. NJ. & S. p. Ry.
Co. VS.. Minnesota 10 Sup. CT. Rep,
pp. i62, 70S, while declaring invalid
the law Of Minnesota authorizing the
railroad and warehouse commission to
compel common carriers to change the
rates In force and adopt such changes
as the commission shall declare to
be equal and reasonable without pro-
viding for any hearing before the
commission. announced with some dis
sent. that the Legislature may CON
stitutionally confer upon commission
the right to regulate, and In effect to
make transportation rates. This be-
Ing so, l can see no reason why the
power may not be conferred TO d COM
mission to fix and suspend demurrage
charges.
Considering these decisions, can
see no reason why an effective recip-
rocal demurrage law cannot be en-
acted, And suggest that any one
Of the following methods may be
adopted;
'Flrst-By establishing fixed sum
prescribed In the statute limited In
amount and enforceable under such
conditions as will not amount to al
regulation Of interstate commerce, or
be an unreasonable exercise of the po-
lice power.
. Secondly prescribing the mini
mum and maximum amount of the de-
murrage charge, giving the commits
sion power to suspend in certain in
stances either at the discretion of the
commission or for certain defined rea-
sons and for periods Of time covering
an emergency, and power from time
to time to fix the rate at any m
.termediate figure between the maxi
mum and minimum limits.
"Thlrd--By comforting upon the
commission the power In their dis
cretion to fix the demurrage charge
and suspend 1t in appropriate In
stances.
The question of the method of en-
q.