The San Francisco call., 1908-09-11
COMMODITY CLAUSE
DECLARED ILLEGAL
Federal Court Holds Hepburn
Railroad Act UncOnsti-
tnti0nal
Coal Lines Win Suit Against
Enforcement of Interstate
Measure

Pf1iLADEIPHIA,S Sept. 10.-Declaring 8
~ TO be drastic, harsh and unreasona-
pie ana an invasion of the rights OF
the states and therefore repugnant to
lne constitution, the United States cir
cult court for the eastern district of
Pennsylvania today dismissed the suits
OF the federal government to enforce
the commodities clause of the Hepburn
railroad act against the anthracite
coal carriers of this state. Judges
George Gray and George II. Dallas
nled opinions dismissng the suits and
Judge Joseph Burlington dissented.
put o1d not file an opinion.
the commodities clause prohibits rail-
road companies from transporting in
interstate commerce any article or
commodity manufactured, mined or pro-
duced by them or under their authority.
fne case was argued in June, United
states Attorney General Bonapafte dea
ilvering the principal argument for the
government The effect of the COM
modlties clause, If constitutional, would
be TO confine the mining of anthra-
clte~coal by the railroads for use In
PENNSYLVANIA only, and compel the rail-
roads to sell all the mining property
they are interested in. either directly
or Indirectly.
WILL APPEAL CASE
1t is almost certain that the case will
be appealed directly to the United
State0 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 ramifications
In the ownership of the coal mines.
Judge Dallas said in his opinion that it
can not be denied that the commodities
clause was enacted not actually for
the regulation of interstate commerce,
but really to coerce the conformity of
interstate business with policy ap-
proved by congress-
Judge Gray, in his opinion, discussed
at great length the limitations put upon
congress by the constitution and con-
clGded as follows:
From every point of view which we
have been able TO approach the ques-l
quent invalidity of this SO called com
modities clause is apparent. 1t in
vadeS the rights of the state by.strik-
ing down the liberty hitherto innocent
~ enjoyed by its citizens under the
laws and usages of the commonw ealth.
to engage in interstate commerce to
the fullest extent as to all harmless
articles, whether owned or not owned
by the carrier and deprives of their
property the defendants, contrary to
the letter and spirit of the fifth amend
ment to the constitution. If the enact
ment in question be warranted by the
commerce clause of the constitution 1t
is hard to see what bounds may be set
to the exercise of that power.
WILL BE OPEN DOOR
1T will indeed be an open door,
through Which the forces of centraliza-
ton hitherto unknown may enter at
VIII, tor the overxhrow ofsthat Just bal
anee 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.
We eorfine 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
Tor the reasons stated. therefore, these
,stst,a bills IN equity are dismissed f and the
the law side of this court are denied
Judge Dallas. in his opinion, says
that he fully concurs in the foregoing
opinion, and the little now to be added
is intended merely to -accentuate my ac-
ceptance of IT.
Continuing. he says:
The prohibitory intent of the piece
too plain for disavowal, and the sug-
gestion that what it prohibits Is not
interstate commerce, but Interstate
transportation by a railroad company
of commodities which it has produced.
etc. is delusive. The question is not
whether the carriage from state to
state of coal produced by the carrier
Is interstate, but whether congress
terstate transportation of coal to coal
not mined or owned by it and in. which
1t has no interest.
DISCRIMINATIyE PROHIBITION
ANY such restriction, whatever it
may be called. in, it's nature and effect