The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-05-04

manufactured. mined or produced by Q
railway company or under Its author
ffy and At the time OF transportation,
the railway company has not In good
faith before the act of transportation
PASSED With its interest in such COM
modify.
"B-when the railway company owns
commodity to be transported in whole
.c-rwhen the railway company. at
the time OF transportation, has an In
terets direct or indirect, In a legal
sense in the commodity which last
prohibition does mot apply to commod-
tiles manufactured, mined or produced.
owned. etc. by corporation because u
railway company IL a stockholder In
such corporation. such ownership Of
stock In producing company by
railway company does not cause Il ~
the owner of the stock to have legal
! interest in the commodity manufact-
ured. etc. by the producing CORPORA
ton. M
"Third---As thus construed. the COM
modtties clause 10 regulation Of COM
merce within the power Of Congress to
enact. The contentious deliberately arr
eued for the railroad companies that
the clause. IL applied to pre-existinx
rights. will operate to take property Of
railroad companies and therefore vio-
amendment restricted which the govern
nnent gave that clause and for the pur-
terest direct or indirect, in q legal
the suits were brought.
"As the construction which the gov
eminent placed upon the act and seeks
to enforce IL now held to be unsound
and as none of the contentious relied
construed. because under such con-
afructfon the act merely enforces q
regulation OF commerce by which car
riers are compelled to associate them
selves from the products which
they carry and does not prohibit
where the carrier is not associated with
the commodity carried. II follows that
the contentious on the. subject OF the
nth amendment are without merit.
'Tourth--The exemption as to tim
Der, etc, contained In the clause 10 not
repugnant to the Constitution.
''Fifth--The provision as TO the PEN
alties Is seperable from the other pro-
visions OF the act. Az no recovery OF
penalties was prayed. no issue con-
corning them Ii here presented. IT win
be time enough to consider whether the
right to recover penalties exists when
an attempt to collect penalties ID made.
"Sixth--As the construction which
the government gave to the act and
which It was the purpose of these suits
necessary In reversing and refsfanding
to direct the character of DEGREES
which shall be entered, but simpy TO
reverse and remand the cases with d.
rections to enforce and apply the stat--
ute as tits now construed.
"Seventh--As the Delaware and Hud-
son Company Is engaged as common
carrier by rail- In the transportation OF
coal in the channels Of interstate COM
merce. II Is q railroad within tho pur-
view OF the commodities clause and 10
subject to the provisions OF that clause
as they are now construed.
Decision Anticipated. 81
Intense interest was manifested by
| the Interstate Commerce Commission
In the decision rendered by the SUI
preme Court on the commodities clause.
The decision did not come az sur
| prise because It had been, anticipated
1 ON the basis OF the debate In Congress
that the court would hold that owner-
ship of the stock or oonds OF coal COM
| panies did not constitute violation Of
| the act. -sss7s-y ~
| No member Of the Interstate Com
merce Commission In advance OF the
reading OF the opinion Of the court,
would express an. opinion as to its eff
fleet. The concrete situation Is that
| only two or the anthracite roads own,
4 operate and market their own coal 1t
Is regarded that under the decision OF
the court the law applies to those
roads--the Lehigh Valley and the Del
aware. Lackawanna and Western. The
effect of the decision, II Is believed.
win be to induce those lines to orga-
nfze separate coal companies and con-
duet their operation through. them be-
cause the mere holding of stock In such
coal companies is held by the court to
be not a violation VI the law.
In addition to his summary OF the
results OF the courts holding. gJustfee
White In his opinion, entered some
what tnto-the reasons for the decision.
Because of the gravity OF the COM
stitutional questions involved. we hold
that our duty is to unity them in such
a way that the prohibitions as to pro-
duction and manufacture shall speak
In the same tense as the prohibitions
against the ownership and therefore
we hold that this statute ordains that
carriers who manufacture, mine or pro-
duce, or who own or hold in whole or
In part, or who are interested directly
In the commodities before the act of
transportation. must in good faith dis
associate themselves from the property
so that the duty Of the carrier may
not conflict with their duty"
Taking up the Governments conten-
tien that the words In the law direct
or indirect interest. make 1t appiica-
BILE TO the Townership OF stock in pro-
duclng companies. Justice White sad:
THE trouble about that 10 that 1t
has been decided in this court that
ownership of stock in a corporation
does not make the owners OF the; stock
the legal owners of the property OF
the corporation. 1t does-not give him
y legal standing as respects interest In
the property OF the corporation In
which he holds the stock.
Argument Not TenabIe.
TT is said that ownership of stock
in the corporation was In the mind of
Congress and therefore, we should read
the act according to the subject to
which the mind Of Congress was d.
rected. disregarding its legal signif-
canoe and regarding those things which
were excluded from 1t and interpret
II according to our supposed assump-
tIon with respect to that which was
demanded of Congress-. That argument
is not -tenable because. II the mind Of
the lawmaker wasl concentrated on the
adoption of this statute, under that
provision then the obvious and plain
duty was to discuss IT. not by a vague
and general expression which exclud-
ed the stock ownership In Its legal
terms, because the judicial mind can
net contemplate that which was Tex-
ciuded and by constituting It to mean
that which In its legal sense has been
settled by this court"
He dwelt at some length on the eff
feet of the provision excepting timber
from the operation OF the law. but
reached the conclusion that the pro-
vision was not discriminative.
Speaking in general terms. Justice
ave hold that the act does none of