Los Angeles herald., 1908-09-11
COMMODITIES CLAUSE
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
CIRCUIT COURT DECIDES IN
RAILROADS. FAVOR
Declares Portion Of Hepburn BIZ Dras.
tic, Harsh and Unreasonable, and
an Invasion Of the Rights
Of the States

By Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA, Sept 10.--Declar-
ing it to be drastic, harsh and unrea-
sonable. and an invasion of the rights
of the states and therefore repugnant
to the constitution, the United States
circuit court for the eastern district
of Pennsylvania today dismissed the
suits of the federal government to en-
force the commodities clause OF the
epSurn railroad act against the an
thracite coal carriers of this state.
Judges George Gray and George II.
Dallas filed opinions dismissing the
suits. and Judge Joseph Burlington
dissented, but did not file an opinion
The commodities clause prohibits rail-
road companies from Transporting III
interstate commerce any article or
commodity manufactured, mined OF
produced by them or under thelr au-
thority. The case was argued IN June,
United States Attorney General Bona
parte delivering the principal argu-
meut fo- the government. The etTect OIL
the commodities clause, if constitution
al. would be to conflne the mining OF
anthracite coal by the railroads 1or use
in Pennsylvania only and compel the
railroads to sell all the mining properly
they are interested in, either dlreCty
or Indirectly. 1t is almost certain tnat
the case will be appealed directly 10 the
United States supreme court. Inc pIil-
cinaI oninion was written by Judge
GRAY. who as president of the Anthra-
cite strike commission has an intimate
knowledge of the mining of nard coal
and of the many ramitcations IN tne
ownership of the coal mines. Juuse
Dallas said in his opinion that 1t cannon
be denied that the commodities clause
was enacted mot actually for the regu-
lation of interstate commerce, put
really to coerce the conformity of in
terstate business with a pollcy APP
rroved by congress"
Judge Gray's Opinion
Judge Gray In his opinion discussed
at great length the limitations put upon
congress by the constitution and con-
cluded as follows:
From every point of view Whlch we
hive been able to approach the ques-
tion. the unreasonablenesS ana cohse-
ouent invalidity of this so-called com
rnodities clause is apparent. 1t lnvades
the rights of the state by striking
down the liberty hitherto innocently en-
joyed by it's citizens under the laws
and usages of the commonwealth 10
engage in interstate commerce 10 tne
fullest extent as to all harmless arti-
cles. whether owned or not owned by
erty the defendants, contrary TO the
letter and spirit of the fifth amendment
to the constitution. If the enactment
in question be warranted by the com
merce clause of the constitution, 1t is
hard to see what bounds may be SET py
the exercise of that power.
"It will indeed be an open door
t. rough which the forces of centrallza-
tion hitherto unknown may enter at
will to the overthrow of that just pal-
ance between federal and state power
for. which the makers of the constitu-
tion so wisely provided as an essential
to the preservation of our dual form OF
government.
ave confine ourselves to the concrete
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 slater, therefore, these
bills in equity are dismissed ana the
petition for writs of mandamus on the
law side of this court are denied.
Judge Dallas in his opinion said tnat
he fully concurred In the foregoing.