The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-05-04
Far-Reacting Contentious of the Govern
ment i'm This Famous "Commodities
Clause Case Are, However,
Not Sustained.
IN ONE VITAL POINT DECISION is
FAVORABLE TO RAILROAD COMPANIES
Holding of Stock in Subordinate Companies By the
interstate Carriers Held To Be
Within the Law.


commodities clause' of the inter
state commerce act of 1906, know as
The Hepburn rate law, is constitutional
was in effect declared today by the su-
preme court of the United States. The
decision was announced by Justice
White. The court reversed and re-
manded the decision of the United
States circuit court, but the only di-
rections were to enforce and apply the
statute as il is now construed.
Some Vital Reductions
Briefly summarized, the decision of
the supreme court in the commodities
clause cases holds the law to be con-
stitutional, but it does not concede the
contentious of the government as to
its scope An especial exception was
as TO the ownership Of stock in diff
ferent corporation which it was held
did not constitute such ownership as
would prohibit transportation under the
terms of the law. It was also held
that ownership of the commodity ap-
piled only to the time of transporta-
fion. If before transporting IT the rall,
: road company has In good faith parted
The principal point of the decision was
In relation to the railroads holding the
stock of subordinate companies and on
that important point the finding was
favorable to the roads
.Tnstice Harlan dsseDted on the stock
feature, but otherwise the decision was
unanimous.
Great Interest Shown.
It has been many day since de
cision of the United States supreme
court has been received with as much
interest as was manifested To-Day III
fhe reversal of the circuit court s
commodities clause decision affect
ing the anthracite coal-carrylng rail-
roads.
These cases had been decided by the
circuit court favorably TO the railroads
in that the clause Of the Hepburn rate
law which prohibits interstate railroads
from carrying commodities mann1ac.
tured, mined or produced directly or
Indirectly by the roads, was declared
+ unconstitutional.
The general impression had been that
that decision would be affirmed IN the
supreme court. When. therefore. there
was a reversal instead OF an afi1rma-
tion. the interest was much magnlhed-
When again; IT was fonnd tnat inc re-
yersa1 was based on technical grounds
aud that the effect was really favor
able to the railroads, sentiment took
another turn and those who had been
anxiously awaiting the announcement
were much puzzled-
Only Summary Given Out,
The decision was announced bv Jus
tice White, who declined to give out
more than a summary. showing tue
net result of the court s finding. Be-
cause of the courts delay IN annouuc'
"a raII s,1r1.
posed that the court would be found
10 be much divided. Only one dissent
ing opinion was announced. Justice
Harlan stated that be did not follow
the conclusion IN the point that the law
does not prohibit the railroad owner
ship Of stock in commodities producing
companies.
Analvzed, Justice Whites decision is
that congress did not transcend its con
stitutiopal authority in enacting the
comm modities provision. but IT was held
that the government construction OF
the provision had been entirely toe
u comprehensive. As constructed by thu
court. the sole object OF the claus" 1'
70 prevent carriers from being asso
ciated IN interest with the commoditie:
Transported at the time Of transporta
tiop.
Summed up. the act only compei
companies to disassociate themsclvc'
from the products rhey cHTrN ana TN
government contention that the law ap
plies TO the ownership Of stock and pro
hibits the transportation of commodi
"a fies simply because they have beer
produced by railroad company Is un
fenable.
Government Really Loses.
The effect Of the decision Is favor
able 10 the railroads, and tho govern
ment lost on practically all points ex
cept in the sustaining of the principl
involved. In holding that congres
had not gone beyond its authority j.
euacting tho Law, the court concede
the right to legislate, and, ii is be
+ lieved that if so disposed, congres
might enlarge and extend the scope o
& the provision. The decision snstaine
the provision Of the law exemptin
timber from the operations of the CON
modities clause,
This exemption was used as a basi
of attack by the railroads on the la'
as discriminatory, but Justice Whit
refused TO accept that view AS or
acted, the law did not apply. to til
Transportation of timber and Il ls, c
course, untouched by the decision,
E Summary Of Opinion.
The following is summary of tr
II opinion in the commodities cases:
The claim OF the government that II
provision contained in the Hepburn &C
spproved June % 1906 commonly callc
the commodities clause, prohibits raj