The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-02-25
CONTENTION
WARS WITH COMMON SENSE;
Hard Throw down for Ar gument Against
Discrimination Between Rates.


To the Editor Of The Journal.
Every law office is flooded now a. days
with literature opposing the power OF
congress. to prescribe railroad rates, a
pamphlet now before me cites a. clause,
from Sec. 8, Art. Of the constitution as
follows: j. { = $Es.,< III r.
mo preference shall be given, by any
regulation of commerce or revenue, to
the ports Of one state over those OF
another
Since the supposed right to prescribe
railway charges is deduced from the pro-
vision of section g. that congress may
regulate commerce with foreign nations
and among the several states the above
clause is set up as constitutional bar
to rate regulation by law. The author
aske: Cam congress regulate. foreign
and interstate commerce, by prescribing
interstate railway rates. without coming
in conflict with this restriction" Clearly
not, he AYERS, wherefore congress can
not make use of that mode of regulating
commerce. @a.'. e. ~. g. =
ports, to the trainers of the consti-
tuition, meant seaports, and the COM
MERGE of such ports doubtless meant
maratime commerce.. Railroads were Of
course undreameds of in, 1887 The evil
dent aim was to prevent discriminate
imposts, tonnage duties, and other gov
ernmental burdens as between the ports
Of different states; the states were to be
upon an equal footing. in respect to their
ports, as such, having reference to the
commerce carried on by means of water
craft There is NO similar restriction
as regards towns: and places not ports.
There would have been sif land commerce
had been asmtnds ors,the CIRCULATION of
commerce or reYenues ,other than that
involved in omara time trade; for there is
as much reason sfort pro- ibiting govern
mental discrimination between the in
land cities Of the different states as
between those situated on navigable
waters. ti7. <...'l. 'I' 7 :
But I do not care ito trace or combat
the argument in detail; I only wish tic
expose one grand fallacy inherent in, all
attempts to use the constitution as a
shield for manifest wrong. It never car
be successfully done, for the constitution
was not framed for any such purpose
! It's paramount aim is declared In the
prea mble. viz: ''to promote the genera
welfare" and especially to "establisf
| Justice Interpreta tons which lead tt
the contrary are prima facie mistaken
and are always rejected in the end.
The case in point is, a fragrant instance
Here is the syllogism: Congress Is pro
hibited from giving preference, by means
of commerce regulations, to the ports O.
one state over those of, another Rate.
fixed by law are commerce regulation:
Which must or may so operate. as to give
lsuch preferences. Therefore, congress.
is prohibited from fixing rates by law
| Now to what purpose is this interpre
1 tation addressed? To the protection O
ports against hurtful determinations b,
means of railroad rates? Not at all
but to the protection of railroads in tn
right to discriminate at will Not to tn
prevention of preferences of some port
over others, but to the prevention o
interference with such preferences
Because congress may not prefer on
port to another in the making of rates
any railroad may. ~ Because rates can
not be made by law without some Incl
dental or accidental preference railroad
are free to make such preferential rate
as may suit their purposes In a wore
, the constitution, in binding congress no
to impose rates which might operat
upon the ports of different states un
equally, has irrevocably committed t
railway owners the power to impose rate
designed to operate acknowledgements
: to destroy the cornr1erce of one port fo
: the benefit Of another.
There Is something wrong with sue
, reasoning, and it is not far to seek.
2 is simply at war with common sense.
Daniel Fish