The Point Pleasant register. [volume] (Point Pleasant, W. Va.) 1909-1939, 1909-05-05
US. SUPREME COURT
DECIDES COMMODITY CLAUSE OF HEP.
BURNRAELAW CONSTITUTIONAL.
Railroads however, not injjuriously
affected by the decision.

NhlroaoS however, not lnJurouSly
affected by the decision.
Washington, May Sit has been
many day since decision of the
supreme court of the United States
has been received with so much inter-
est as was manifested today in the
decision of that court in what are
known as the commodities clauses
cases afFectingcoal carryingrailroads.
These cases had been decided by the
United States circuit court for the
Eastern district of Pennsylvania IA
yorable to the railroads, in that the
clause of the Hepburn rate law, which
prohibits interstate railroads from
carrying commodities manufactured,
mined or produced directly or in
directly by the roads, was declared
unconstitutional and the general i'm
precision has been that that decision
would be affirmed by the supreme
coart. When, therefore, there was
reversal instead of an affirmation,
the interest was much magnifed.
When again it was found that the
reversal was based on technical
grounds, and that the effect was
really favorable to the railroads,
sentiment took another turn, and
those who had been anxiously await
ing the announcement of the result
found themselves much puzzled.
The court S judgment was announc-
ed by Justice White, who, while he
read from an elaborate printed
opinion, declined to give out any
thing more than summary, showing
the net result of the courts finding.
There was also surprise over the fact
that there were no elaborate dissent
ing opinions, and, indeed, only one
dissenting opinion of any kind. Be-
cause of the court delay inannounc-
ing its conclusion, it was generally
supposed that it would be found to
be much divided. The dissent was
announced by Justice Harlan, who,
in a few words, stated that he did
not follow the conclusion of thecourt.
on the one point that the law does
not prohibit the railroad ownership
of stock commodities producing COM
panies.
Analyzed, Justice Whites decision,
is that congress did not transcend its
constitutional authority in enactment
of the commodities provision, but, on
the other hand, it was held that the
governments construction of the pro-
vision had been entirely too COM
prehensive. As construed by the
court, the sole object of the clause Is
to prevent carriers from being as
sociated in interest with the eom-
modities transported at the time of
transportation, hence that the law
only prohibits the transportation of
articles when they have been pro-
, drced by railway company, which
las not, in good faith, parted with
them; when the company owns or
controls, in whole, or in part, the
commodity to be transported, and
when the company has an interest
direct or indirect in the commodity
in legal sense.
1t was especially held, however;
that the prohibition does not apply
to the ownership of stock in the pro-
ducing company, but that carrier
may own stock in such a company
and at the same time transport. the
!, product of that company.
| Summed up, the act only compels
; companies to dissociate themselves
from the products they carry, and
the contention of the government
: that the law applies of stock and pro-
hibits the transportation of commod-
tiles simply because they have been
produced by railroad company, re-
sardless ofthe fact that the company
has parted with them, is untenable.
and incapable of enforcement.
1t thus appears first that the COM
modities clause is a vital and. ons-,