The Washington herald., 1907-03-13

Special 10 The Washington Herald.
Chicago March 12-The Record Herald
win print to-nlp prov a dispatch from its
Washington correspondent containing an
interview with Interstate Commerce Com
missioner James s. Harlan. in which Mr..
Harlan advances the opinion that the
body Of which he is a member has the
power 10 deal with State laws which re-
suit IN interference with interstate traffic.
This view is entirely new. and doubtless
will be vigorously discussed in official and
railroad circles Mr. Harlan is not repre-
scented as speaking for the commission,
and its attitude in the premises remains
to BE- seen.
In the course OF the interview refer
cnce was made to State laws which com
pei railroads TO furnish ears for State
shipments. thereby rendering il necessary
for them 20 discriminate against inter
state shippers. ana which require freight
trains 10 be moved a definite number Of
miles per day. Commissioner Harlan was
asked il there is any relief that the COM
mission can afford interstate shippers, or
any step that it can take to prevent dis
elimination against interstate commerce.
In reply 90 this question he said. in part.
Powers of Commission.
"The matter has not come before us
formally as yet, and 1 have therefore mad
neither the time nor the opportunity to
consider the question fully. OF course.
the Interstate Commerce act forbids un-
just determinations. and charges dhe
commission with the duty Of enforcing
that provision, as well as all other provi-
sions. There have been many cases be
fore us where railroads have been
charged with discrimination IN the dis
tribution Of their available cars In favor
Of one shipper and against another The
commission has enforced the law IN "A
nIrlber of such cases where no question
OF State legislation was involved but
where the railroad for reasons of its own.
was supplying cars 20 one shipper and
nUt 20 another.
IL may be said with some force, that
the case would be different where a
railroad does this under the compulsion
Of a State law. But would Il be different
IN principle? ! doubt it very much. The
Federal law is. of c0Erst. paramount II
permits unjust determinations on no
grounds whatever. VIII Il. then. permit a
State law to interfere with interstate traf-
hc? The question is an important enc,
and must not be decided without careful
thought
1t seems 60 me. however. that .he
commission. charged ny the law 20 SgdI3
ard Protect the rights Of interstate ship
rers Cst' carriers as wed, cannot SIT iGle
while interstate traffic is interfered with,
and. IN some cases, interrupted by the
operation of such State cnactmeuts.
What May Be Done.
"Of course. / am now expressing only
my own personal thought about the mat
ter and am not speaking in any way for
the commission. But it seems to me that,
reluctant as this commission would be TO
interfere with the operations Of any State
laws, nevertheless we have a duty to per-
form under the act 20 regulate commerce
which we are now administering. and it
may be that we cannot escape some con-
fict or friction with State laws which in
their operation result in inteTfeTenCeS
with interstate traffic.
IF interstate carriers are forced boy
the operation Of such laws 10 sidctraCk
interstate commerce. il is question i'm
my mind how long such a result can be
permitted. II such laws result in putting
all the available ears at the disposition
of State shippers, 90 the prejudice of in
terstate shippers, it is clear interference
with interstate traffic. In the end we may
he compelled TO find some way, and /
think IL probable il can be done to stay
the operation of such laws in the inter
ests of the great commerce between the
States, upon which the prosperity of the
whole co intry largely depends If the
conditions become more acute than they
now are. these matters will have 10 have
very careful consideration -