The Farmville herald. [volume] (Farmville, Va.) 1890-1934, 1908-10-09
CASES co To
SUPREME COURT
Coal Road Suits Appealed 10
Highest Tribunal.
BASED UPON TEN ERRORS

Judge Burlington Files Dissenting
Opinion On Commodity Clause OF
Rate Blli-psslares That Az Con-
ursss Is Vested With Power TO hseu-
late Interstate cemmsres, He Holds
the Law to Be constltutlonal-Law'
Makers Did Not Seek to cOnhScsts
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
yolyinR 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 10 holding that the
clause "is not a valid exercise OF the
powers Of congress under the consti
tuition as to 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 hled by L. Allison VII
mer. special assistant to Attorney
General Bonaparte. and by District
Attorney ]. Whitaker Thompson.
II is also contsndsd that the circuit
court was wrong In declaring the la"
discriminative and q 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 th'
commodities clause to be unconstitu
tIonal. Judge Burlington quotes anC
endorses the words Of Chief Justice
Marshall. who in An opinion said
THE question whether law TO o'
void for its rspugnancy to the consti
tuition is. at all times. a question o.
much delicacy. which ought seldom, !
ever. to be decided In the affirmative
in a doubtful case"
The opinion says that the prior &C
ton of any state IN authorizing car
riers 10 own manufactures or mines
can in no way detract from the powel
Of congress to thereafter regulate In
terstats commerce. "Manifestly,' h'
says. such purchase under state au
thorlty created no obligation OF con
tract on the part Of congress that 1
never would, In pursuance OF It's powe
TO regulate commerce between th'
states. enact laws which might restric
carriers from the interstate carriag'
OF their own products. In Ell
feet II would place IN each state
veto on the power to regulate con
ferred on the United States"
The Judge presumes that congress
in passing this act did not seek to con
hscats private property, but rather t
avert by due regulation the evils tn
carrier had itsslf brought about b.
allowing its private interest to injur
iously affect It's public duty.
The opinion concludes as follows;
Satisfied that under the constitu
ton the power to regulate commerc'
between the states is vested In con
gress, that such power includes tn
power to regulate carriers thereof, AM
that the divorce Of the dual relation
Of public carrier and private trans
porter Is a regulation Of commerce,
hold this law is constitutional"