Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-08-29
A QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION.


The Interstate Commerce Act OF
June 80 1906 which becomes operative
May 1, 1908, contains Incidental refer
ence to coal shipments from mines,
which was referred to only in gen
eral and indistinct way, in a recent
issue of this paper, and possibly calls
for more extended reference. The Ian
guage of the act is:
"From and after May /, 1908, IL
Ahall he unlawful for any railroad
company to transport from any state
Territory or the District of Columbia.
TO any other state, Territory or the
District of Columbia, or to any for
eign country, any article or commod-
ity, other than timber and the manu-
featured products thereof manufactur-
ed, mined or produced by 1t, or under
its authority. or which IL may own
in whole or In part, or in when IL
may have any interest direct or indl-
rect, except such articles or commod-
tiles as may be necessary and intend
ed for its use in the conduct of its
business as a common carrier"
That is TO say, IL the law is not
amended the Union Pacific may not
mine coal at Schofield and sell the
product out of the state for CONNER
cial purposes. though 1t is held that
the law can not be 70 construed that
the company shall be prohibited from
carrying the coal out of the state for
its own use along its own lines. At
the same time. attorneys say, there Is
nothing to prevent the Union Pacific
from selling the coal after mining 1t.
TO the Rio Grande which may hire In
turn the Union Pacific to transport It
where ii peases; or, the u. r. could
sell the product OF any of its Wyo-
ming mines, to the Burlington ana the
latter road could in turn also hire
the L. p to haul 1t where it pleases,
under the wording OF the statute.
However. independent or private mine
owners are not affected by the Act.
and can ship to any point without let
or hindrance, over any road and for
any purpose,
Local railroad attorneys call atten-
ton to the fact that this legislation
general IN its character, is an illustra-
ton of the foolishness of trying to
Ilrtht SifNltAA lNbiHAAAbh Nh"NNSh NNA
one particular part OF the country and
designed to satisfy the demands OF
purely local conditions. apply to the
country at large, and particularly TO
the West. The paragraph IN question
was the result of the demands OF min
,ers in the PENNSYLVANIA anthracite
coal regions. who objected to the
companies, mining the coal and en-
pIoying them, being allowed to do
the hauling also The peculiar condi-
tions existing there might be suited
by the legislation as passed by Con-
gress But II Is out of the bounds OF
reason to apply 1t TO a section of the
United states. where coal consuming
people are being brought daily for
settlement, ana where the rigor of tbs
winters climate makes an adequate
supply of coal imperative from any
source. Attorneys do not believe the
section in question win stand in the
courts. if It IS not amended by Con-
gress before being made the subject
OF legislation, for it Is worded In a
way that suggests loopholes that the
shafts OF legal argument may shoot
through.
If allowed to stand this legislation
would be far reaching and serious in
It's consequences, for It is held
that strictly private and lnde-
pendent coal mines would not
make much OF a showing In sup
plying ,he Western markets.
with the railroad owned mines shut
off as sources Of supply, But then, It
"a some time before next May. and IL
the meanwhile, the Legislative outlook
may be entirely changed