Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1909-05-07
MPOIRTANT DECISION
COMMODITIES CLAUSE UPHELD
BY U. S. SUPREME COURT.
Carrier May Own Stock In Producing
Company and at Same Time Trans
port Product of That Company.

Washington, d. Cit has been
many a day since a decision of the
supreme court of the United States
has been received with so much in
terest as was manifested yesterday
in the decision of that court in what
are known as the Commodities
clause" cases, affecting the anthracite
coal carrying railroads. These cases
had been decided by the United States
circuit court for the eastern district
of Pennsylvania favorably to the rail-
roads in that the clause of the Hep
burn rate law, which prohibits inter
state railroads from carrying COM
modities manufactured, mined or pro-
duced directly or indirectly by the
roads, was declared unconstitutional
and the general impression had been
that that decision would be affirmed
by the supreme court. When, there
fore, there was a reversal instead of
an affirmation, the interest was much
magnified
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 awaiting the announce
ment of the result found themselves
much puzzled. The courts Judgment
was announced by Justice White, who,
while he read from an elaborate
printed opinion, declined to give out
anything more than a summary show
ing the net result of the courts find
ing. There was also surprise over
the fact that there were no elaborate
dissenting opinions, and indeed only
one dissenting opinion of any kind.
The dissent was announced by Justice
Harlan who, in few words, stated
that he did not follow the conclusion
of the court on the one point that
the law does not prohibit the rail
road ownership of stock in commodi-
ties producing companies.
AnalyZed Justice Whites decision Is
| that congress did not transcend its con-
stitutional authority in the enactment of
the commodities provision, but, the
other hand 1t was held that the govern
ment's construction of the provision had
been entirely too comprehensive. AS con-
strued by the court, the sole object of
the clause is to prevent carriers from
being associated in interest with the COM
modities transported at the time of trans
porta tiGn; hence that the law only pro-
hibits the transportation of articles when
they have been produced by a railway
company which has 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 a legal
| sense. 1t was especially held. however,
that the prohibition does not apply to the
| ownership of stock in a producing com
pany, but that a carrier may own stock
| in such company, and at the same time
transport the product of that company.
Summed up the act only compels COM
panies to dissociate themselves from the
products they carry, and the contention
of the government that the law applies
to the ownership of stock and prohibits
the transportation of commodities simply
because they have been produced by a
railroad company, regardless of the fact
that the company has parted with them,
is untenable and incapable of enforce
ment.
1t thus appears, first, that the commodi-
ties clause Is vital and operative stat
ute with respect to all products, such as
coal, which the railroad companies actu-
ally own at the time of transportation,
and that the railroads must sell such pro-
ducts to somebody else before they can
lawfully ship them and second, that un-
less the act Is promptly amended so as
to include stock ownership, the railroads
can escape the law entirely by convert
ing their direct ownership of coal prop
ization of subsidiary coal companies