New-York tribune., 1909-05-04

IFrcU r1e Tribune Bureau
Washington, May 3-The Supreme Court OF
the United States handed down to-day the long
looked for decision on the commodities clause
of the interstate commerce law The decision
upholds the constitutionaIity of the clause but
so far modtfes the effect as to render it practi-
caIIy nugat0ry- The Attorney General is quoted
having said that the decision "sustatns the
government in the letter and defeats it in the
spirit" The purpose Of Congress was 70 pre-
vent railroads from carrying commodities which
they produced from mines or other sources. with
the exception of timber Under the decision Of
the court. railroad owning a mine. for in
stance, sell its coal at the mouth Of the
mine and then transport il as the property OF
the purchaser, or it can organize a subsidiary
company to own the mine, and then hold stock
in that company.
Several members of Congress. after reading
the decision. said il indicated that any attempt
on the part Of Congress TO remedy the defects
Of the law by re-enacting it in more specific or
more drastic terms would fail Of its purpose
They believe the decision makes it obvious that
such an attempt would result in a decision that
the new law unconstitutional
RAILROADS WIN CHIEF POINTS
As construed. the sole object Of the clause is TO
prevent carriers from being associated in in
terest with the commodities transported at the
time of transportation. hence the law only pro-
hbits the transportation of articles when they
have been produced by a railroad 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 interest direct
or indirect in the commodity in a legal sense
II was especially held however, that the pro-
hibtiOn does not apply 10 the ownership Of
stock in a producing company, but that a ear
irier may own stock in such 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 govern
ment that the law applies to 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 unJsn-
able and incapable of enforcement This IS
clearly shown by the following extrac- from
the opinion:
We hold that the act does none Of the things,
RIGHTLY construed, for. which the governments
contends that the act, when you rightly con-
strue H. is a mere regulation for dissociaton
from the products which are carried, and ~ no
way connected with the vast and extensive prs
hibitions for which the government contends'
and. therefore, in no way lends itself eitner 10
any OF the arguments resPeetIng ineonyenIsinos,
Su0QsSLeQ
which led the lower court to hold as u 0Id.
II thus appears. first. that the commodities
clause is q vital and operative statute with re-
spect TO all products. such as coal which the
railroad companies actually own at the time &
transportation. and that the railroads must sen
s,7cb nroducts TO somebody else before they can
lawfully ship them, and. second, that unless tne
act is promptly amended so as TO include stock
ownership the railroads can escape the law en-
in Of
tireIy by converting their direct ownership ol
coal properties into stock ownership by the or
SANITATION of subsidiary coal companies
The effect Of the decision under existing con-
ditfons is favorable TO the railroads. and the
government lost on practically every point ex-
cont the s,stentation of the principle involved
In holding that Congress had not gone beyond ITS
o,,tborftv in enacting the law the court con-
coded the right to Iegisate, and II IS believed
that. If so disposed Congress might enlarge anu
extend the scope OF the provision
Hence. while the railroads gain q pracucA
victory the government Is not CONFRONTED oy 3
constitutional bar in acting further in the direc
ton of control of the roads in regard TO snip
uent Of their own commodities
The decision sustained the provision Of the
law exempting timber from the operations OF
tho clause. This exemption was used as a basis
of attack by the railroads on the law as dis
crininatory but the court refused TO accept
that view As enacted. the law did not apply
TO the transportation of timber. and this IS. OF
course. untouched by the decision
JUSTICE wHITE'S OPINION
The decision was announced by Justice Whits
and was unanimous except that Justice Harlan
dissented on the stock feature. A summary OF
the opinion follows:
THE claim Of the government that the pro-
vision contained in the railroad rate act aD-
proved June %. 1906, commonly called the COM
rnolitieS clause. prohibits a railway company
from moving commodities in interstate com
r1erce because the company has manufactured.
rDined or produced them. owned them in
whole or in part OF has had interest, direct
or indirect. in them wholly irrespective OF the
relation or connection of the carrier with the
commodities at the time Of transportation. -
decided to be untenable 1t is also decided THAT
he DrovisiOn o. the commodities clause relating
to interest direct or indirect, does not embraces
a., interest which a carrier may have IN a pro-
,iIriug corporation the result OF the owner
shin bv the carrier Of stock in such corporation
frresDective of the amount OF stock which the
carrier may own in such corporation protl9sA
the corporation has been organized in good faith
e-Reiecting the construction placed oy tHs
,-overnn1ent upon the commodities clause. II -
55eNded tEat that clause. when all its provisions
are harmOniously construed. has solely for Us
object 10 prevent carriers engaged IN Interstate
commerce from being associated IN interest," az
the time OF transportation with the cohloItt.cs
transpo-ted and therefore the conlfnoellles
,I--,,-a only nrobibits railroad companies en-