Milford chronicle., 1908-10-09
CASES GO TO
SUPREME COURT
Coal Road Suits Appealed TO
Highest Tribunal.
BASED UPON TEN ERRORS

Judge Burlington Files Dissenting
Opinion On Commodity Clause Of
Rate Bill-Declares That As Con-
sress Is Vested With Power to Regu-
late Interstate Commerce, He Holds
the Law to Be constitutional-Law-
Makers Did Not Seek to COnfscate
Private Property.
Philadelphia. Oct Judges Dallas,
Gray and Burlington, of the United
States circuit court, handed down an
order permitting the government to
appeal from the decision of the court
in the case of the United States
against the anthracite coal roads in
volving the cOnstitutionality of the
commodities clause of the Hepburn
rate bill The papers will be hurried
10 Washington as soon as possible.
The supreme court will be asked to
give precedence to the trial of the ap
peal The appeal is based upon ten as
serted errors.
1t is especially contended that the |
circuit court erred in holding that the |
clause lis not valid exercise of the |
powers of congress under the consti- |
tuition as 20 the regulation of com /
merce." and that the measure would /
deprive the railroads of their property
without due process of law"
The assignments of error upon
which the appeal was allowed, ten in
number. were filed by L. Allison VIII
mer. special assistant to Attorney
General Bonaparte, and by District
Attorney J. Whitaker Thompson
1t is also cOntended, that the circuit
court was wrong in declaring the law
discriminative and prohibition and
not a regulation of interstate com
merce.
Judge Burlington filed his opinion
dissenting from the decision Of Judges
Gray and Dallas. who declared the
commodities clause to be unconstitu-
tional Judge Burlington q1o-es AMI
endorses the words of Chief Justice
Marshall. who in an opinion said:
The question whether a law TO be
void for its repugnancy to the consti-
tuition is. at all times. a question of 4
much delicacy, which ought seldom, If S
ever, to be decided in the affirmative e
in a doubtful case" I
The opinion says that the prior ac-
tiOn Of any state in authorizing car Il
riers to own manufactures or mines a
can in no way detract from the power u
Of congress to thereafter regulate in D
terstate commerce. "Manifestly" he "
says, such purchase under state au- a
thority created no obligation or con D.
tract on the part of congress that it "
never would, in pursuance of its power 81
10 regulate commerce between the Kl
states, enact laws which might restrict
carriers from the interstate carriage
II their own products. In ef-
ect it would place in each state a tn
'eto on the power to regulate con Ii
erred on the United States" sl
The judge presumes that congress a
a passing this act did not seek to con Sc
scate private property, but rather to nj
vert by due regulation the evils the ra
arrier had itself brought about by Go
lowing its private interest to injur- ag
usly affect its public duty. tel
The opinion concludes as follows: to
Satisfied that under the constitu- bri
IN the power to regulate commerce an
tween the states is vested in con
ess, that such power includes the 81
wer to regulate carriers thereof, and
1t the divorce Of the dual relation me
public carrier and private trans car
rter is a regulation Of commerce, l Cel
q THIS law Is constitutional" De-
der