Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-05-04

Washington, May st has been
many day since a decision of the su-
| prcmc court of the United States has
been received with so much interest as
was manifested today in the decision
of that court in what are known as the
Commodities clause cases, affecting
the anthracite coal carrying railroads
The cases had been decided by the
United States circuit court for the
| eastern district of Pennsylvania favor
ably to the railroads in that the clause
of the Hepburn rate law, which pro-
hihits interstate railroads from carry
ing commodities manufactured, mined
or produced directly or Indirectly by
the roads, was declared unconstitution-
ri, and the general impression was that
the decision would be affirmed by the
supreme court. When, therefore. there
was Il reversal instead Of an affirma-
ton the interest was much magnitied.
When again it was found that the re-
vcrsal vas based on technical grounds
and that the effect was really favor
able to the railroads, sentiment took
another turn and those who had been
anxiously awaiting the announcement
of the result found themselves much
puzzled.
The courts judgment was announced
by Justice White, who read from an
elaborate printed opinion, but declined
to give anything more than a sum-
mary showing the net result of the
courts finding. There was also sur
prise over the fact that there were no
elaborate dissenting opinions and in
deed. only one dissenting opinion Of
any kind. Because of the courts de-
lay in announcing its conclusions, ii
was generally supposed that the court
would b" found to be much divided.
The dissenting opinion was by Justice
Harlan. who, in {. few words, explained
that he did not follow the conclusion
of the court on the one point that the
law does not prohibit the railroad own
crship OF stock in commodities prOduc-
ing companies.
AnalyZed. Justice Whites decision is
that Congress did not transcend it's
constitutional authority in the enact
ment of the commodities provision.
but. on the other hand, it is held that
governments construction Of the provi-
sion was entirely too comparative. AS
construed by the court the sole object
Of the clause is to prevent carriers
from being associated in interest with
the commodities transported at the
time Of transportation, hence the law
prohibits only the transportation of ar
tclcs when they have been produced
by railway company which has rot,
in good faith. parted with them; when
the componv owns or controls, in whole
or in rart, the commodity to be trans
ported, and when the company has an
interest direct or indirect in the com
modify in a legal sense. 1t was cSpe
cially held however. that the lrohibl-
t,n does not apply to the ownership
of st 1ck in producing company, but
that . carrier may own stock in such u
company and at the same time trans
port the rroduct Of that company.
Summed up, tho act is held to compel
companies to disassociate themselves only
from the products they carry and the
contention of the government that the
law applies To ownership of stock and
prohibits the transportation of cominod-
tiles simply because they have been pro-
duced by railroad company, regardless
of the fact that the company has parted
with them is held to be untenabc and
Incapable of enforcement.
1t thus appears. first. that the Conmod-
tiles clause is vital and operative stat
ute with respect to all products, such AS
coal which railroad companies actually
own at the time of transportation and
that the railroads must sell such product
to somebody else before they can law
fully ship them: and. second. that unless
the act is promptly amended so as to IN
clude stock ownership, the railroads can
escape the law entirely by converting
their direct ownership of coal companies
into stock ownership by the organization
of subsidiary coal companies.
The effect of the decision under exist
ing conditions is favorable to the raul
roads and the government lost on practi-
cally every point except the suSlehtioh
OF the principle involved. In holding
that Congress had not gone beyond It's au-
| thcrity in enacting the law. the court con-
ceded the right to legislate and 1t Is ne
leved if SO disposed Congress might en-
large and extend the scope of the pro-
vision.
Hence while the railroads gain practi-
ca!ly Il victory. the government is not
| confronted by a constitutional bar from
| further acting in the direction of control
of the roads in the matter of shipment of
| their own commodities.
| The cases made their first appearance in
| the supreme court on Oct. 10th last. Ihey
were argued during the month of January
and the decision has been anxiously
awaited ever since the latter date.
| The decision sustained the provision of
the law exemptng timber from the oper-
ations of the clause. This exemption was
used as a basis of attack by the railroads
| OF the law as discriminatory, but Justice
White refused to accept that view. AS
enacted the law did not apply to the
| transportation of timber, and it is, of
| course, untouched by the decision.
T. Justice White dwelt at some length upon
the effect of the provision excepting tim
Der from the operation of the law. but
reached the conclusion that the provision