The new era. (Walden, Colo.) 1906-19??, 1908-10-01
RAILROADS win
IN COAL FIGHT
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT
DECLARES COMMODITIES
CLAUSE INVALID.
CASE TO Be APPEALED
CLAUSE HELD UNCONSTlTUTION
AL THAT PROHIBITS CARRY
ING ON COAL BUSINESS.

Notwithstanding it to be
drastic, harsh and unreasonable and
an invasion of the rights of the states
and therefore repugnant to the consti-
tuition, the United States Circuit Court
for the Eastern district of Pennsyl-
vania Thursday 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 H.
Dallas filed opinions Diminishing the
suits, and Judge Joseph Burlington dis
scented, but did not file an opinion.
The commodities clause prohibits
railroad companies from transporting
in interstate commerce any article or
commodity manufactured, mined or
produced bv them or under their au-
thority.
The case was argued in June, United
States Attorney General Bonaparte
delivering the principal argument for
the government.
The effect of the commodities
clause, If constitutional. would be to
confine the mining of anthracite coal
by the railroads for use in Pennsyl-
vania only and compel the railroads
to sell all the mining property they
are interested in either directly or in
directly.
The case will be appealed directly
to the United States Supreme Court by
the government.
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 ramfica-
lions in the ownership of the coal
mines.
Judge Dallas said in his opinion that
it cannot be denied that the commodi-
ties clause was enacted, mot actually
for the regulation of interstate COM
merce, but really to coerce the con-
formity of intrastate business with
policy approved by Congress"
Judge Gray in his opinion discussed
at great length the limitations put
upon Congress by the constitution and
concluded as follows:
From every point of view which we
have been able to approach the ques-
ton the unreasonableness and conSe-
quent invalidity of this so-called COM
modities clause is apparent. 1t in
vades the rights of the state, by strik-
ing down the liberties hitherto limo
Gently enjoyed by its citizens, under
the laws and usages of the common
wealth. to engage in interstate COM
merce to the fullest extent as to all
harmless articles, whether owned or
not owned by the carrier. and deprives
of their property these defendants,
contrary to the letter and spirit of the
,o,,f To h.,
"If the enactment in question be
warranted by the commerce clause of
the constitution, it is hard to see what
bounds may be set to the exercise of
that power. 1t will 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 constitu-
ton so wisely provided as an essen
tial to the preservation OF our dual
form of government.
Ample as is the scope of legisla-
tive power granted by the language
of the commerce clause, and far as the
Supreme Court has undoubtedly gone
in sustaining the validity of legisla-
ton under it. we think it may be safe
ly said that no assertion of this power
hlehtrtO Dy Congress has been SO far-
reaching or affected in SO Serious a
degree the individual liberty and prop
erty rights enjoyed under the consti-
tuition and laws of state as the en-
actment VIC are here considering It
is not to be denied that the right to
carry in interstate commerce coal
which they own in whole or in part, or
which is mined or produced by them
or under their authority, or by coal
companies IN which they are stock
holders, was. until the passage Of the
act in question, lawful right of these
defendants; that it was common
right of property was neither denied
nor disputed by the common or statute
law of Pennsylvania; that 1t was
most important property right, the en-
joyment and exercise of which was
neither criminal nor immoral and sub
ject only to any restraints imposed
upon its possessors by the common or
statute law Of the state or by the then
existing statutes of the United States
so far as they were engaged in inter.
state commerce"