Weekly Watertown leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1908-1909, 1908-09-11
COM MODITIES
CLAUSE OF RATE
act KNOCKED OUT
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT
HOLDS SECTION OF HEPBURN
LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
EIGHT RAILWAYS INVOLVED.
Roads Declare Section Is Confscatory,
Discriminating and Prohibitive,
Not Proper Regulation.
WAS AIMED AT COAL BUSINESS.

PHILADELPHIA. Pa, Sept 10
The commodities clause of the Hepburn
railroad act was today declared to be
unconstitutional by the United States cir
cult court for the eastern district of
Pennsylvania
Ihe commodities clause constitutes the
nth paragraph Of the first section of the
interstate commerce act it being one Of
the amendments made by the Hepburn
railroad act of June %. 1906. The
clause provides that after May /, 1908,
1t shall be unlawful for any railroad
company to transport from one state TO
another or to any foreign country any ar
ticie or commodity, manufactured, mined
OF produced by it or under its authority
directly or indirectly, except such articles
or commodities as may be necessary for
It's use i'll the conduct of its business as
a common carrier. The clause eNempts
! timber and its manufactured products
and Is aimed particularly at railroads
owning coal mines.
The case was argued on June 16 and
II before Judges George NJ. Dallas,
George Gray and Joseph Burlington.
Judges Gray and Dallas agreed in an
| opinion covering eigbty-fvc typewriter
pages that the clause is unconstitutional
Judge Burlington dissented, but did not
file an opinion.
Ihe railroad companies involved We're
| the Jersey Central, the Lehigh Valley,
the Erie, the Delaware, Lackawanna "
Western, the Delaware & Hudson, the
Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia *
Reading.
Own Many Mines.
Ninety per cent of ;ill the unmined
anthracite coal in Pennsylvania belongs
to these corporations or to coal cOmpa-
MES whose shares are held by them.
The Philadelphia q Readings case was
not argued along with the others be
cause of certain questions of law in
yClved in its ownership
The commodities clause case was CON
sldered 50 important that Attorney Gen
eral BOnaparte came to this city and
personally made the personal argument
III behalf of the government, other ad-
dresses for the government being made
by l.. Allison Wilmer and L. G. Spelling,
special assistants to the attorney general.
l he general counsel for the railroads
were John q. Johnson of this city and
K. w. DeFOrest of New York, who were
assisted by the legal statfS of the rail
roads interested.
RailrodS Protested Clause
Prior to the clause going into effect,
the anthracite coal carrying railways
went before the interstate commerce
commission and declared that they could
not comply with the clause without max
ing great sacrifices. 1t was pointed cut
:
clal stringency the companies could not
dispose of their coal properties except
at tremendous loss and they further de-
clared their conviction that the clause
was unconstitutional. Thereupon the
government agreed not to enforce the
clause until Il decision was had upon law
points involving its conStitutionality.
The department of justice then fled
a bill in equity unfolding the govern
ment's contention that the clause was
constitutional. The railroads in their
answers to the governments complaint
gave seven chief reasons why the clause
was Fepugnant to the constitution,
among them being that it was contisca-
tory, discriminating and Il prohibition
and not a regulation; that it deprived
the railroads Of liberty and property"
and violated a right reserved TO the
state.
Penalties Are Heavy.
The interstate commerce act provides
a penalty not to exceed 5000 for each
violation of the clause. During the ar
gument It was contended by the defend
ants that each car of coal shipped in
violation of the clause could be con-
strued under the act as an offense, and
as the Lehigh Valley railroad ships daily
1900 cars of anthracite in interstate
commerce that railroad under such an
Interpretation would be liable to Il fine
Of S6,O00.OO0 each day.