The Fargo forum and daily republican., 1909-05-07
COMMODITIES CLAUSE.


does not grow enthusiastic over the
recent United States supreme court
decision on the Hepburn law. II says:
While the commodities clause" Of
the Hepburn act amending the inter-
state commerce law is not held to be
unconstitutional by the supreme court,
IT is so construed as practically t. de-
feat its purpose, which undoubtedly
was to impel railroads engaged in in
terstate commerce to divest themselves
Of control of mining or manufacturing
operations the products of which they
transported over their lines. The
clause" makes 1t unlawful for any
such railroad to transport ANY article
or commodity, other than timber and
the manufactured products thereof,
manufactured, mined or produced by
it, or under its authority. or which it
may own in whole or in part, or in
which it may have any interest di-
rect or indirect, except such articles
or commodities as may be necessary
and intended for use in the conduct of
its business as a common carrier"
1t appears from the summary Of the
opinion Of the court as handed down
by Justice White, that this is inter
preted as not prohibiting a railroad
company from transporting commodi-
ties which it has produced or owned
or had an interest in before the trans
portation takes place, provided it has
then divested itself of the ownership
or interest in the articles carried. 1t
is held that the interest direct or in
direct that is forbidden, does not in
clude that which ii may have as the
result Of ownership Of stock in the
producing corporation, irrespective of
the amount Of such stock, provided the
corporation has been organized in good
faith" 1t appears that 1t may hold a
controlling amount of such stock and
so virtually direct the operation of the
producing company where it's work is
done, II 1t does not own or have a
property interest in the products when
they are transported over its lines.
The railroad company is prohibited
from carrying such commodities only
when they have been produced by 1t
or under its authority and it has not
''in good faith before the act of trans
portation parted with its interest in
such commodities" when ii still owns
whole or in part, or when 1t has at the
time of transportation an interest ''in
legal sense in the commodity" which
1t would not have merely as a stock
holder in the corporation that produc-
ed it. Thus constructed the clause is
"a regulator Of commerce within the
power of congress to enact and does
not violate the section of the consti-
tuition against depriving any citizen of
property or liberty without the pro-
cess of law. The gist of the conclu-
sion is that the provision is now con-
strued merely enforces a regulation
of commerce by which carriers are
compelled to dissociate themselves
from products which they carry" but
not from the person or corporation
which has produced them. The con-
tention OF the Delaware & Hudson Co.
that 1t is not common carrier is not
upheld, but that will not matter to
the company.
The fact Of the matter Is, that the
court sustains the commodities clause
as a constitutional exercise of the
power to regulate interstate commerce
but so construes it as to open an easy
way around it for the railroad COM
panies. They can continue to control
companies that own and operate coal
mines or any other manufacturing or
producing corporations, but they must
have no ownership or interest in the
products when they are, transporting
them. If these are sold at the mine
or mill or factory, and the railroad has
thereby parted with it's ownership or
interest SO far aa IL NAV he said to
have had any, 1t can transport them
as freely as IL 1t had had no interest
in their production. This makes it
| easy to manage, and though the for
midable Clause" Is held to have va
lidity, it is left with no vitality. 1t
is made perfectly nugatory so far as
it's Intended effect is concerned, and
the irreverent may regard this as a
strained construction" in favor of the
| coal roads"