New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-07-26


S at present in Raleigh and is attending the
conferences with Governor Glenn and other
officials but II is asserted that he is not there IN
official capacity. and that If he went there
under orders IL by direction Of the Presi-
dent or Of the Attorney General, whose desire
was nor communicated to any one now in the
department in Washington
THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED.
Some confusion appears TO have grown out of
the frequent references 70 the rate law in this
case but it should be clearly understood that it
is the recently enacted rate law Of North Caro-
lima. and has nothing 10 do with the federal
railway rate law or with any recent enactment
of Congress
It is pointed out by high legal authorities that
the Supreme Court has always deprecated con-
aicts between the federal and the state courts
and attention is called 10 the unanimous decision
OF the Supreme Court in the case of Watts and
Sachs $40 [. 50, IN which Chief Justice Fuller
who delivered the opinion, said.
We cannot but express our regret at the IN
fortunate collision between the two courts, and
the belief that the considerate observance of
the rule Of comfy is adequate TO avert such oc-
currences"
Partisans of the state judiciary say that
il holding the state law to be unconsti-
tutional and suspending its operation, Judge
Pritchard set his judgment against the en-
tire judiciary and executive authority of the
state, az least deprived the state judiciary Of
the right Of review. whereas II is entirely pos
sihle that had the been prosecuted in the
state court the law objected 70 would have been
declared TO be in violation Of either or both the
state and federal constitutions. without appeal
70 the Supreme Court Of the United States.
MINNESOTA CASE CITED.
The recent action Of United States Judge
Lochren, in Minnesota, in a case assumed In
the absence of official records, TO have been
closely analogous TO the North Carolina case. is
pointed 70 conforming not only 10 good law
but 70 the rule Of comfy. The railroads Of
Minnesota appealed to Judge Lochren to set
aside, the ground that II was confiscatory. the
rate law recently passed in that state The
Judge declined 10 entertain the plea for an in
junction, on the ground that 1t could not he
proved in advance that the law was conhsca-
tory. asserting that past experience had often
shown that reductions Of passenger rates which
lie railroads had assumed would prove con-
ihscatory had resulted in so increasing the vol
rne OF travel as soon to increase, or least not
10 diminish, the receipts of the roads from this
source. Having refused TO entertain the plea
Tor an injunction. Judge Lochren advised the
railroads 10 try the newly prescribed rate for six
months and to come into court with the figures
i II then proved confscatory.
An opinion strongly sustaining Judge Pritch-
ard was voiced to-day by a federal official
whose position gives his opinion on railway mat
tiers the greatest weight
sUSTAINs JUDGE PRITCHARD
y have always held" he said, that the prop
erty Of all the people whether they be railroad
operators or humble tradesn1en, is by the con-
situation removed from the danger Of confsca-
Oh Ihere Is the claim on the part of the
railroad people that the 2Iz cent rate prescribed
~ the North Carolina Legislature Is conhsca
tory In that the service at that rate would Of
necessity, be performed a loss If they can
tStao4lsI mat tact. the law is unconstitutional
y they cannot il is valid
Until the Supreme Court passes unon tba
matter II would be unjust TO enforce the new
rate for if the railroads were to win the ca Sc
1hey would have no recourse in recovering the
money they had unjustly lost in the mean
HTne. Judge Pritchard has suggested that until
\ TIE maj decision system be pursued Of Civ
81 Ing coupons with all tickets bought thereby
guaranteeing return Of the excess paid In
case the railroads should lose their suit This
1nsures ali parties concerned against loss and
seems 10 me TO offer equitable solution of
the oifheulty, and 1 see no reason why il should
not be accepted"
The fact is those who have 70 do with the en-
ioTcement Of the federal railway rate law see
N the right Of state legislatures to prescribe
rates serious menace 10 the successful opera
ton Of the federal law. An instance is pointed
10 which came before the Interstate Commerce
Commission some years ago. The shippers of a
large numerical city filed complaint alleging
that the discrepancy between the carload and
the iW-pOund rate between their city and the
towns Of certain Western state was so great
as to preclude any but bulk shipments. thus eff
fectuaily depriVing the jobbers Of the large city
Of the privilege Of shipping in small quantities.
The commission proceeded 10 the state in ques-
ton and conducted an investigation which re-
suited IN establishing the accuracy of the con-
fention of the shippers. The commission was
however. Informally advised by the state rail-
way commission that the rates within the state
had been fixed with the express purpose of ia
voring the local jobbers, and that any change
that the Interstate Commerce Commission might
undertake 10 bring about would be followed by
a corresponding change in the state rates. which
would promptly restore such advantage TO the
local jobbers. That some twelve or thir-
teen years ago, and the commission has not yet
rendered a decision.
II is also pointed ont that the Commission.
under the federal rate law. might decree what
should constitute d reasonable and Just maxi
mum rate grain shipments between Chicago
and Buffalo taking into consideration in doing
the rate between Buffalo and New York. and
that the New York Assembly might then enact
the state completely to stultify the work OF
the Commission and to render impracticable the
maintenance of the rate IL had decreed.
Could the course Of Judge Pritchard be
1erred for review to the Interstate Commerce
Commission. there IS little doubt that il would
be enthusiastically sustained but it is also
probable that the Commission would with equal
enthusiasm approve an amendment TO the Con-
stitution which would take from the legislatures
of the several states ali right 70 prescribe or
interfere with railway rates. and which would
confer on the federal government the sole right
20 deal with this difficult problem.