Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1908-09-11
UNITED STATES COURT
WEAKEhS HEPBURN ACT
Continued from First Page.)
common knowledge, may be judic.ally
noticed"
The Commodities Cia:.se.

The Commodities Cla:se.
Taking up the commodities clause.
the opinion says:
Ample as the scope of the legis-
lative power granted by the languae
OF the commerce clause. and as far as
the supreme court has undonbted y
gone in substantiating the validit? OF
Legislation under it. We think 1t may
be safely said that no assertion Of this
power hitherto by Congrf Sc. has been
so far-lPaching, or affected in so scrl-
GUS a degree the individual lilnrty and
property rights enjoyed under tht con-
stitutiOn and laws of state. as the
enactment we are here con :id2r n2.
1t Is not to be deni that the r.Sh,
to carry interstate commerce ccai
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 The Stockh1l-
rs. until the passage OF the" act in
question was a lawful right OF these
ldafendants;- that it was common
right or statute law of Pennsylvania;
that 1t was a most important property
right. the enjoyment and exercise CT
WHICH WIS IL ttbti ~
moral. and subject only to any rcstra-
ints imposed upon IT. 20 s sscfs ~
the common order statute If Is tate;
or bv the then existing statutes CT
the United States. 50 far "a they wer1
engaged in Interstate commerce. ii
in manner or to any extent what yer
they have actually violated the letter
surely they could bS restrained. 'r
otherwise made amenable to the Sai
penalties in such BE- half without GRIP
ping or destroying business IN
Which they ar, protitab'y and usefuily
engaged.
ITO these defendants, thus innocent
" and lawful; engaes d in transport
ing coal which they own, or ere IN
terested in to the extent and under
tho circumstances herein before SCI
forth. comes this act of Congress ana
declares that this whole BUSINESS IS
unlawful. and that the future eNerc!3S
of a vested right of ownership. which
they have heretofore and for long
period, of years enjoyed. under theS
belief that it was an ordinary right
Of property enjoyed innoC- nifty by al
citizens of the state alike, and hVaiu-
able as such, is crime. and p@n'sL-
able as such. That this legislation Is
drastic and harsh does not. CT course
dispose of the qtss Stion of power on
tie part Of Cngress to enact 1t. IhH
first inquiry to be made. therefore, Is
as to whether this legislation Is
regulation of commerce within me
true meaning OF .he commerce clause
of the constitution.
Unlimited Power Has No Place.
The opinion DISCUSSES this point
quotes many authorities. ana says:
We may assume. therefore, eha'
the commerce CLAUSE CT the consti't-
ton is no exception to thu general
doctrine that unlimited power mas no
place in American governmental INST
buttons, and that there are rights OF
liberty and property that the secure
against no title legislative action.
In the opinion Of his court, the
enactment in question is not reSu'a-
ton of commerce, within the proper
meaning CT these wOnds. as used IN
the commerce clause of the constitu-
ton. ard therefore net within 'hG
mower grant d H. that clause. .
Judge Dallas in his opinion says he
fully concurs in Judge Gray's opinion.