The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1908-09-19
COMMODITY
LAW is BAD
-nrRAL COURT SAYS PART
Of HEPBURN ACT is UN-
CONSTITUTIONAL.
o,;nion Written by Judge Gray
Holds that Railroad Owners of
Goal Mines May Continue to
Carry Their Own P roduct--Case
Probably Go to Higher Court.

pbiIadelphia, Sept. 12.-Declaring
:. 70 he drastic, harsh and unreasona-
-. and an invasion of the rights of the
-.otos and therefore repugnant to the
ns+itntion. the United States circuit
o,r+ for the Eastern district of Penn
lrIrania. dismissed the SUITS of the
s,5oraI government to enforce the COM
-,oditv clause of the Hepburn railroad
ao+ aoainst the Anthracite Coal Carriers
e This state. Judges George Gray and
GORGE H. Dallas filed opinions dis
Kissing the suits and Judge Joseph
Darlington dissented, but did not file
am oninion The commodity clause
nrohibits railroad companies from
transporting in interstate commerce
any article or commodity maunfac-
tnred, mined or produced by them Or
nnder their authority. The case was
orgnad in June United States Attor-
nov General Bonaparte delivered the
mincipal argument for the govern
,nont The effect Of the commodity
clause. if constitutional, would be to
confne the mining of anthracite coal
hv the railroads for use in PeDnsylva-
mia only, or compel the railroads to
sell all the mining property they are
interested in, either directly Or indi-
rprtlv. 1t is almost certain that the
case will be appealed directly to the
United States supreme court.
The principal opinion was written
by Judge Gray, who, as president of
the anthracite strike commission, has
An intimate knowledge of the mining
of hard coal and of the many ramifca-
tons in the ownership of the coal
mines Judge Dallas said in his opin-
ion that it cannot be denied that the
commodity clause was eancted mot
actually for the regulation of interstate
commerce, but really to coerce the
conformity of interstate business with
a policy approved by congress.
Judge Gray in his opinion discussed
at great length the limitations put up
on congress by the constitution and
concluded as follows
From every point of view from
which we have been able to approach
the question, the unreasOnableness and
consequent invalidity of the so-called
commodities clause is apparent. 1t in
vlOves the rights of the state by strik-
ing down the liberty hitherto innocent
IL enjoyed by its citizenss under the
Of tho lfh
to engage in interstate commerce to
the fullest extent as to all harmless ar
tcies, whether owned or not owned by
the carrier and deprives Of their prop
erty the defendants contrary to the let
ter and spirit of the Fifth amendment
to the constitution. If the enactment
in question be warranted by the COM
merce clause of the constitution, it is
hard to see what bounds may be set to
the exercise of tsis power.
1T will indeed be an open door,
through which the forces of centraliza
ton hitherto unknown may enter at
will, to the overthrow of that just bal
ance between federal and state power,
for which the makers of the cOnstltu-
ton so wisely provided as an essential
to the preservation of our dual form OF
government
We cOnfine ourselves to the con-
crete facts presented by the pleadings
IN these cases and intimate no opinion
either way as to cases where the prop
erty has been acquired by the carriers
subsequent to the passage of the act.
FOR the reasons stated, therefore, these
bills in equity are discussed and the
petitions for writs Of mandamus on the
law side Of this court are denied. -
The commodities clause constitutes
The fifth paragraph of the first section
W the Interstate commerce act, it be-
ing one of the amendments made by
the Hepburn railroad act of June ~,
1906
The clause provides that after May,
lSVS 1t shall be unlawful for any rail
Ioad company to transport from one
S'ate to another or to any foreign
country any article or commodity man
waetured, mined or produced by it or
utter Its authority, directly or indl-
!ec1ly, except such articles or commod-
i'les as may be necessary for it's use in
iie conduct gifts business as a common
!arrler The clause except timber and
-s manufactured products and is aimed
pai'lcularly at railroads owning coal
mines.
LIE interstate commerce act provides
penalty not to exceed S., 900 for each
'iolatmno Of the clause. During the
oulnent 1t was commended by the de-
siuants that each car of coal shipped
'lolatlon Of the clause could be con-
auueo under the act as an Offense, and
So9 Iiie Lehigh Valley railroad shipped
10y I'ZoO cars of anthracite coal IN
DO estate commerce, that railraod un-
~ Such Interpretation would be liable
ME OF Sc, 900, 900 each day.
Favor Fair Appropriation.
i,n' TT n B. >, Sept. 12.-Hon. Will
rara, iempleman, minister of inland