The White Pine news. [volume] (Ely, Nev.) 1906-1910, 1907-06-28
PHILANDER c.
KNOX TO YALE
Law SCHOOL
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
FEDERAL POWER TO REGU-
LATE COMMERCE..
SAFEGUARDS Against REPRISALS
That Which Was a Matter of State
Concern May Become One of
National Concern.
(Continued From Page One.)


control the leading productive enter
prises of the country was Illegal when
utilized to absorb competing systems
of interstate railroads, and thereby
we escaped danger to- our COM
merce, our Government and our very
liberties, the magnitude of which can
scarcely be grasped.
1t was likewise judicially deter
mined that a com bination between a
railroad company and a shipper, to
grant the latter an unlawful rebate
which results in the establishment OF
monopoly is violation of the Sher-
man Act, and that a court of equity
might restrain the guilty parties at
the suit of the Attorney General OF
the United States, as under the gen.
eral jurisdiction in equity. OF al.
most equal Importance was the decis-
ion that the operations of a monop.
olistic combination within State
may be SO connected with those be-
tween the States as to bring the
whole under the regulative power OF
Congress.
Notwithstanding the success which
attended these suits, there was devel.
oped number of serious defects and
omissions in National legislation nee.
essary to be corrected, if the avenues
OF commerce were to be kept open to
all upon the same terms, and if a
speedy presentation for violations OF
the law was to be placed in the hands
OF the government itself to restore
the rule of freedom and equality in
Interstate and foreign commerce.
The legislation proposed to the
Fltty-Seventh Congress as necessary
TO accomplish the restoration of the
normal commercial rule, all of which
was promptly enacted, was:
Isl. That in respect to railroad
rebates, the omission in the act ia
regulate commerce to punish the ben.
eficiary should be supplied by impos.
ing penalty, not only upon the car
rler who gave, but upon the shipper
VINO received, such rebates, and that
the power of the equity courts to re-
strain such practices at the suit OF
the United States should be made
certain by statute.
I'd. That it should be made nm.
lawful to transport traffic by carriers
subject to the act to regulate com.
merce at any rate less than such car
rlers' published rate, and that all who
participated in the violation of such
law should be punished.
I'd. That comprehensive plan
should be framed to enable the Gov
eminent to get at all the facts bear
ing upon the organization and prac.
tlces OF concerns engaged in inter.
state and foreign commerce essential
to full understanding thereof.
4th. Another step in legislation
which was earnestly recommended
was an act to speed the final decision
OF cases under the interstate COM
meree and antitrust law.
These laws, enacted during the
short session of the 57th Congress
we're followed by the railroad rate
Jaw of the 59th Congress, the princi-
pal feature of which is the grant of
bower to the Interstate Commerce
Commission to fix a reasonable rate
Tor the carriage of goods and per.
sons
These laws We're designed to Sc
cure equality in transportation SER
vice and equality, stability and
reasonableness in TRANSFORMATION
charges. They provide a swift rem
edy at the suit of the Government in
It's own courts of equity, thereby re.
lieving the individual sufferer from
the expense and delay incident to a
private suit.
me new proposition is this: Con.
gfess has the power to regulate com.
merce including its Observation-Disclosures
ana likewise power to reeu.
late the persons by whom articles OF
commerce are produced in respect tr
matters disconnected with commerce
This addition to the rule finds ex.
preston in the suggestion to prohibit
the interstate transportation of in.
hocuous articles lawfully made OF
produced in a State for reasons moi
anectlng Interstate commerce.
IL is claimed that as the power tC
regulate commerce is absolute, com.
plete and mainly exclusive in Con.
gfess, the right to forbid the shin.
ment In Interstate trade of any kim
OF goods, for any reason. comes
Wlthln that power. That is to saw
under the guise of a commercial reg.
ulatlon, not necessary for the pro.
mot1on or protection of commerce. q
producing regulation, which Congress
could not have enacted, may be en-.
forced; or, in other words, Congress
can deny person the right to engage
IN interstate commerce for doing thai
Whlcn congress cannot prohibit him
from doing. But, as we have seen
congress cannot regulate production
In my Judgment, the power to reg.
Glate commerce between the States
does not carry with it the power tc
pronibit commerce, unless the pro.
hibltion has for its purpose the facil.
ltat1on, safety or protection of com.
merclal intercourse, or the accom-.
pllshment of some other Nationa
purpose.
me power to regulate interstate
commerce does not regulate the
laying of an arbitrary embargo upor
the lawfully produced, harmless pro
ducts of State, nor to the right tc
defeat the policy of a State as to If,
own internal affairs.
The sum of the matter then |,
thls: For the purpose of protect
ing commerce, Congress may close it,
channels to those who are iniuriously
affecting it, but for the purpose Of
enforcing more enlightened polio,
In respect to matters not within thu
Jurisdiction of Congress, it has M
such power.
Congress may employ such mean,
as 1T chooses to accomplish tina
which is in it's power But the enc
10 be accomplished must be within
The scope of it's constitutional powers
, The legislative discretion extends t.
the means and not to the ends to b,
accomplished by use of the means.