Rogue River courier. (Grants Pass, Or.) 1886-1927, 1907-01-04
RECIPROCAL DEMURRACE
LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL
Lumber Manufacturers Associa-
tion Consults Legal Authority
on the Question.

The following is the opinion sub
mitted by W. 7. Muir. Of Portland,
attorney for the Oregon and Washing.
ton Lumber Manufacturers Associa.
tion, regarding the proposed Recipro
cal Legislation
Oregon and Washington Lumber
Manufacturers Association.
Gentlemen:
/ have been able to consider the
q uestion Of the power Of the State OF
Oregon to enact legislation, providing
for Q reciprocal demurrsge charge
applying to railways and shippers.
sufficiently to state thst. in my judg-
ment, this may be done without
violating the interstate commerce
clause Of the Federal Constitution.
Tie Supreme Court Of the United
States In Houston Texas @. HAilToad
Company ". Mayes declared certain
sections Of the Texas railway Law fix.
ing . reciprocal demurrsge charge
void because the law % framed was
an invalid exercise Of the police
power Of the state, three Of tho JUS
tioes dissenting from the majority
opinion. The Texas statute provided
for charge Of ea5 per car . day for
each days delay in furnishing or un-
loading cars; tho charge to begin to
run from 9 time specified. and per.
mitted Of no excuse for failure to fur.
nish cars ordered except in cases of
strikes and other public oalamities. f"
The limited reasons specified as valid
excuses for the omission to furnish
cars ordered caused the Supreme
Court to declare the law on these
points invalid. In the course Of its
decision the court admits the right Of
the states to make reasonable ru les
with regard to the method of carrying
on interstate business not in conflict
with regulations upon the same sub.
ject enacted by Conregss, and pro.
vided also that such rules shall be
consistent with the general require.
ments that interstate commerce shall
be free and unobstructed. and pro.
vided that such rule shall not amount
to "a regulation Of such commerce. :"
The court declined to define the
limits OF this power of regulation and
in so doing used these words.
"The exact limit of lawful leeisla-
tion upon this subject cannot, in the
nature of things, be defined. IL
can only be illustrated from decided
cases, by applying the principles there.
In annunciated, determining from
these whether in the particular case
the rule be reasonable or otherwise. "
The Supreme Court of the United
States, in Chicago, NJ. 4 S p. Ry
Co, vs. Minnesota, 10 Sup. CT. Rep,
PIP. 46a. 703, while declaring invalid
the law Of Minnesota authorizing the
railroad and warehouse commission 10
compel common carriers TO change
ths rates in force and to adopt suob
changes as the commission shall de.
clare to be equal and reasonable. /"
without providing for any hearing
before the commission, announced
with some dissent that the Levisla.
tnre may oonstitutionally confer upon
q commission the right to regulate.
and In effect to make transportation
rates This being so, can see no
reason why the power may not be
conferred 10 a commission to fix and
suspend demurrsge charges.
considering these decisions, / can
see no ieason why an effective recip.
rocal demurrage law cannot be en-.
acted And | suggest that any one of
the following methods NAV be
adopted
fisrt-By establishing a fixed sum
prescribed in the statute limited in
'mount and enforceable under such
Nnditions as will not amount 10 A
regulation of- intars,a,, -