The Washington herald., 1907-07-26


as a necessary consequence, affects in
terstate rates. does not that operate to
defeat the constitutional power of
Congress to regulate interstate com
merce? {.
This. in the opinion of a high official
who is watching the matter closely. is
the practical question involved in the
situation that has arisen through the
action OF United States Judge Pritch-
ard in granting an order restraining
the state Of North Carolina from en-
forcing its "a cent railroad paSsen-
ger rate The whole case IS unfOrtu-
nate in the opinion OF the official, be-
cause 1t has the effect OF discOuraglng
railroad construction at the very time
when the future prosperity of the
country depends more upon such con-
structiOn than upon any other factor.
Omeers Of the government who are
concerned over the condition Of affairs
in North Carolina hold that It is the
most serious phase of the railroad sit
uation and serves TO illustrate the na-
ture and gravity Of controversies Of
this character. The case is regarded
as simple enough per Sc, however, and
II Is contended that it should not ere
ate any confusion in the mind Of the
public.
The view taken here by those whose
opinion is worth noting is this:
View Taken Here.
The Constitution Of the United States is
the supreme law Of the land, binding and
enforceable everywhere It contains an
express provision that no property shall
be taken without due process Of law, and
no person deprived Of the equal protection
of the law The earnings Of a railroad
from transportation service are its prop
erty, and If a State undertakes TO reduce
those earnings below the basis of just
compensation the rate in effect takes the
property Of the railroad without due pro-
cess OF law and deprives it Of the equal
protection Of the law.
ANY person claiming that his COnstitu-
tiOnal rights in this regard have been vio-
lated IS free TO appeal 10 the Federal
courts. and il is their duty to give fair
and impartial hearing TO the contention
II a prima facie case is made, ii is clearly
within the discretion of the Federal court
10 grant an injunction against the en-
.Iorcemeut of the law alleged to be uncon-
stitutional until the question Of its valid
ity can be determined in the suit The
effect Of such injunction is TO suspend the
enforcement Of the law for the time be-
ing, and 1t IS the duty of the State Off
cials TO accept and respect the mandate Of
the Federal court.
Federal Court Must BE Upheld.
There would seem to be only one
course 10 pursue. and that is 10 sustain
the action OF Judge Pritehard without
hesitation. because the integrity and au-
thOrity Of the Federal court must be
upheld at all hazards"
Authorities here express the belief that
the United States Supreme Court viii
have to mark out by decree just where
Federal authority over interstate COM
merce begins and ends, the clash be
tween the State and Federal authorities
bringing up a question that must be set
tied by the court Of last resort. The
Official above referred to saidt
"a railroad which operates in two or
more States carries both State and inter
state traffic. but 1t is impossible to sep
arate either the operations or the earn
ings Of the road as between the two
kinds of traffic. Therefore the action Of
the State which, while ostensibIy directed
against purely State traffic. necessarily
and materially affects interstate traffic
may well be held to be in derOgation Of
the powers Of Congress To regulate. That
is to say. broadly speaking. either a State
regulation or what is such in kind or
form must be subordinate TO national
regulation. or the latter will be seriously
impaired.
Affects Interstate Rates.
For example, the State Of Missouri, or
the authorities of the State of Missouri. a
while ago reduced the rates in that State
Among the rates so reduced was the rate
on grain from Kansas City to ST. Louis.
That reduction was binding. Of course, on
a road wholly within the State of Mis-
souri, between the cities named. But other
roads operating between the same cities
not lyingswholly in Missouri, and, there
fore, not subject to its jurisdiction. were.
of course, as a commercial necessity,
compelled 20 accept the same rates, and
thus the action of the State of Missouri,
whether right or wrong. had the neces-
sary effect Of reducing a very large num-
Der Of Interstate rates.
In ike manner, if the State Of Georgia
should reduce the rate on cotton from At
lanta to Savannah. It would virtually
compel a corresponding reduction in all
the important cotton rates Of the whole
country, because the rate from Atlanta to
Savannah is adjusted with reference 20
rates to Mobile and New Orleans and
other points.
Another illustration: Vast quantities
of grain come down from the lakes to
Buffalo. Suppose New York should pre-
scribe a S-cent rate on that commodity.
The New York Central, wholly within the
State, would have 10 carry grain at the
Scent rate. Interstate roads. as a com
mercial necessity. would have to meet
that figure.
Door Open for Conflict.
Under present circumstances the
door is wide open for the conflict of
Federal and State law. At the last
session Congress passed a law prescrib-
ing the hours OF service Of telegraph
operators, employed on interstate rail-
roads. Texas has law prescribing
different hours Of service for railroad
t4egraph operators.
Suppose North Carolina should pass
Jaw requiring dlusrent safety ap-
pliances on railroads from those re-
quired by the Federal law. How could
a railroad as a practical matter COM
ply with both laws? No railroad en-
gagged in both kinds OF traffic, and most
OF them are. could keep a certain
equipment for use In State traffic and
another kind OF equipment for use in
Interstate traffic.
THE State Of Virginia passed a law
requiring railroads In that State to
move traffic at the rate OF not less than