The semi-weekly messenger., 1908-04-07
srATE RAILROAD REGULATION.

From the New York Commercial
We take IN editorial, printed below,
on the Minnesota and North Carolina
railway rate decisions I'm the federal
supreme court II In clear statement
OF the facts and the meaning OF the
decision. That paper says:
Those persons who affect to dis
cover i'm the decision by the United
States supreme court against the con-
stitutionality OF the recent enacted
railroad rate laws OF Minnesota and
North Carolina a ruling that points
directly to the unconstitutionahty OF
the federal rate law OF lSOo-tne
Hepburn act" SO called-fail TO full
ly sense the bearing and the applica-
ton OF this decision The right OF
the states to establish and enforce
rates Of passenger and freight trans
portation within their borders has not
in the slightest measure been i'm
paired by this opinion, nor has the
right Of the federal government TO
exercise control over interstate com
merce rates through the national
commission been called in question.
To particularize, the Minnesota law
makes two cents per mile the maxi
mum rate for passage on railroads
in that state and also fixes the rates
for the hauling of certain commodi-
ties-the penalties for violation OF
the act being a fine OF SIS 900 and i'm
prisonment for Ave years for every
refusal by an officer of a railroad to
comply with the provisions of the
law; the federal courts for that dis
trict were successfully appealed to
fer enjoining the attorney general
from enforcing the law; and this e
cision by the United States supreme
court merely establishes the jurisdic-
tion OF the federal courts in such
cases and declares the act 10 be un-
constitutional, primarily, by reason OF
its excessive penalties.
Article eleven in the amendments
to the constitution OF the United
States declares that the judicial power
of the United States shall not be
construed to extend to any suit in
law or equity commenced or prosecut-
ed against one Of the United States
by citizens Of another state or by
citizens or subjects Of any foreign
state-and under this provision the
Minnesota attorney general denied
the jurisdiction Of the federal court
in this matter. Section one of article
fourteen in the amendments TO the
federal constitution provides, how
ever, that no state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge !
the privileges CT the inmunities OF
citizens of the United States; nor !
shall. any state deprive any person Of |
life, liberty or property without due !
process of law nor deny to any per- I,
son within its Jurisdiction the equal !
protection Of the laws" This latest !
supreme court opiDion holds that as |
between the prohibition of the !
eleventh amendment behind which !
the state had taken refuge in enact !
ing such legislation and the property /
rights protected by the fourteenth
amendment, the latter is paramount !
where such rights are invaded. So |
much for the Jurisdiction OF the fed |
eral courts in the matter of holding
up" the enforcement of state laws
a clear setback to the ultra-state-
rights theorists.
AS tc the specific provisions of the |
Minnesota act itself the supreme |
ooAS oSAJ1 SA2dI us pcl1dllltS are So 1
severe that it would be difficult for a |
railroad company to find an employe |
willing to run the risk of conviction |
Of felony for the purpose of testing
he law, and the company itself |
might be subject to the confScation /
of its whole property possibly. 1T |
may therefore be said" Justice Peck !
ham concludes, that when the penal
les for d.sObedience are by fines SO
enormous and Imprisonment so Sc
we're as 10 intimidate the company and !
It's officers from resorting to the |
courts to test the validity of the
egislation, the result is the same as
t the law in terms prohibited the
from seeking judicial con-
'truction of laws which deeply af- (
ects its rights" Hence this laws
)lain unconstitutionality
Minnesota, North Carolina, all the
;tates may keep on till doomsday
laws for the regulation of
reight and passenger rates on their
ailroads-provided only that they do
lot make the rates so low or the
penalties for violation too high as
o be confiscatory of the property:
md the federal courts can always
stop the enforcement Of such laws
,ending the constitutional test. That
s all there is in this latest decision