The Bon Homme County independent. [volume] (Tabor, S.D.) 1904-1913, 1909-03-11

L Y ouA "Ioll lillOEIllSu LldI v
the 2-cent passenger fare law =
~ had been knocked out by Judge =
~ Mcpherson, OF the United States =
= circuit court OF Kansas City. y
~ A I can say at this time" =
= said the governor. is that the =
decision Is not a correct one. 1t \
= doeS not end the fight, however. =
+ Tho state will surely appeal to \
= IN United States supreme court. \
= or course this question Ii In the \
~ hands OF the attorney general" :
Kansas City, Mo-, March 10-A not
able decision in favor of the railroads
was handed down today by Judge Nc
Pherson, OF the United States district
court, in the two-cent fare and maxi
mum freight rate cases, involving IS
Missouri lines. The railroads contend
ed that the rates fixed by the statutes
of the state were not remu1erative, but
confiscatory, and that the enforcement
of the statutes be enioined. The state
brought proceedings TO have them en-
forced.
THE question:" said Judge McPher-
son, in his decision, "is whether the
traffic wholly within the state of Mis-
souri, generally referred to in the evil
dence as local traffic, can be carried
under the freight rate statute of 1907
and h passenger fare statute of 1907
at such profit as will give a reasonable
return after paying expenses upon the
investment, or whether such traffic Is
carried at q loss or less than such rea-
sonable profit. The court has
reached the conclusion that, upon this
question, the statutory rates fixed by
either and both statutes are not re-
m~uneratiVe.
import Of Decision.
Affnr thn 1A1t.In1 hnI haAn @SlAI
down the views of attorneys on both
sides of the controversy sought as to
what the immediate effect the opinion
would have. While several railway at
torneys intimated individual railroads
would go beck to the Scent passenger
rate. none was able to state specifically
this would be done, or IL done, when
action will be taken.
Frank Hagerman made the following
statement for various railroads.:
The maximum freight laws have
never been enforced because temporary
injunctions were granted when they be-
came effective. Therefore the situa-
ton regarding them will in the future
be the same as in the past. Two-cent
fare law has, however, been enforced.
From the decision Of the court the
state may appeal to the supreme court
OF the United States. Pending that ap-
peal the railroads will not be bound by
the law, and nay at any time adopt
and put In force the old rate by pub
fishing the new schedules as required
by law.
THE 2-cent rate is subject pending
litigation in Minnesota, South Dakota,
Nebraska and Kansas. 1t is not con
ceivable that a rate confiscatory In
Missouri can be compensatory in any
of such states. What, If anything, will
be done in other states has not been
determined. In view of thorough in
v~estigations n decisions In Pennsyl-
vania and Missouri cases, 1t Is doubtful
whether any state will longer attempt
to keep in force the 2-cent fare law.
MePherson's Reasons.
In giving the reasons for such con-
illusions, the decision says: THE un-
questioned and ~undoubted rule Is that
and Of law, in favor of the validity of
every legislative enactment. The rail-
way companies have the burden OF re-
moving this presumption, and showing
that the statute clearly, as some courts
say, palpably, and others say, beyond
a reasonable doubt, that the statute Is
invalid. In these cases the court has
recognized this rule. The authorities
upon this question form a long and un-
broken line, with the single exception
of the majority opinion in The Pennsyl-
Vania case, decided a year ago. (68,.
AL. IlCp.p OIO. Anu lldL one auInOr-
ity is not persuasive.
All testimony n argument bearing
upon the question as to what consider
alton the Legislature Of Missouri gave
to these enaCtments Is utterly imma-
terial. Much was said in argument as
to the message of Governor Hughes, of
New York, two years ago in declining
to approve the 2-cent fare statute of
that state. Governor Hughes had the
moral courage to veto a measure of
popular favor because, as he believed,
the question had not been fully con
sidered. But the relations Of a COVER
nor to proposed legislation, and those
of a court to legislation contaminated,
are entirely different.
Most OF the laymen and many law
yers believe that the question Is wheth-
err the railway company as a system is
earning sufficient revenue upon the
value OF the property OF the system.
They believe that If the Burlington,
Santa Fe, Wabash, or any other rail-
road system is earning such money as
will pay all charges and expenses, in
Guiding taxes and interest. with reason
able dividends to the stockholders, that
state rates for state business must
stand. or course no one believes this
who has given the slightest attention
to the question. That precise question
was before, and was decided by, Jus
tice Brewer. and affirmed by the SUI
preme court in the Nebraska case of
Smyth VS.. Ames. The only question is
as to Missouri rates, less expenses
properly charged against the same. And
II this balance does not leave suff-
cient to pay a reasonable return, the
law is invalid. And If the railroad sys-
tenn of any company is earning more
than a reasonable return by reason of
Interstate rates, which affect the peo-
pie many times more than local rates,
nn1 tg gttah infnr0fnfn rntno ~ tnn
high, congress, either acting alone or
through a commission, must make the
correction.
The supreme court, during the pres
ent year, in the case of City OF New
York VS.. Consolidated Gas company, of
New York, decided that 6 per cent was
fair and right to be given to the own
ers upon h true valuation. My opin-