Omaha daily bee., 1909-05-04

that the railroad companies in question
were engaged in Transporting in interstate
anthracite coal mined by them
selves in their own mines which are 10
Gated In Pennsylvania.
The Hepburn act makes q" VITAL FOR
any railroad. company 90 transport from
any state TO any other state or to any for
etgn country any article or commodity
other than timber manufactured, mined CT
produced by II, or under its authority, or
which II may wi in. whole or In part. or
in which It may have any interest, direct,
or indirect, except such articles or com
modities as may be necessary and intended
for fits use in the conduct of It's business
as a common carrier"
p The circuit court decided against the con
stitutionallty Of the. provision, because. as
It was alleged, II .depriyes the corporations
Of their liberty and OF property in a way
that is prohibited by the fifth amendment
to- the constitution. 1t was also held by
the court. that the clause, mot directly but
Indirectly" works a practical confiscati)n
Of the property Of the railroad; hence the
law was held. to be invalid and in it's ma
ture and effect a discriminstive prohibit
ton" go
That verdict was reversed by today,s de-
cision' ,s-- ....,~. w.
summary of Decision.
The following Is a summary Of the opin-
-. The claim of the government that
the provision contained in the Hepburn act.
approved June 20, 1906, commonly called the
commodities clause, prohibits a railroad
COMPANY from moving commodities in in
terstate because the company
has manufactured mined or produced
them, or owned them In, Who'll or in. part.
'or. has had an interest direct or indirect in
them, wholly irrespective Of the relation
or connection of the carrier with. the COM
moditfes at the time q. the transportation,
is decided TO be untenable. 1t Is also de-
cided that the provision of the commodities
'tlahse relating to interest. direct or In
direct, does not embrace an interest which
a earlier may have in a producing cor
p~oration as the result OF the ownership by
the carrier OF stock in such corporation ir-
respective OF the amount OF stock which
the carrier may own in such corporation.
provided the. corporation has been organized
In good faith
2, Rejecting. the construction placed by
the government upon the commodities
clause, II Is decldek,that this clause, when
all, its provisions are tremendously con-
strued, has solely for. its object TO prevent
carriers engaged in interstate
from being ~asAOcis,ed in interest at the
time of transportation with commodities
transported. and therefore. the commodities
clause only prohibits railroad companies
r. -.
porting such commerce commodities under
the following circumstance and conditions:
stock Owpership Not Barred.
"(Al, When the commodity has been
manufactured :, mined, OF produced by a rail-
road company or. under. its authority and
at, the time of transportation the railroad
company has not In good faith before the
act of transportation passed with its in
terest In such commodity; CB). when the
railway company own the commodity to be
transported an whole or in part; CC), when
the railroad company at the time OF trans
portation has an interest direct or In
direct In a legal sense in the commodity,
which last prohibition does not apply TO
commodities manufactured. mined, pro-
duced, owned. etc% by a corporation be-
cause a railroad company is a stakeholder
in such '6orpordtToh. Such ownership OF
stock IN q producing company by a railway
company does not cause II as the owner OF
stock to have a legal interest in the COM
modify manufactured. etc, by the produc-
ing corporation.
g. "A thus construed the commodities
clause IL a regulation of within
the .pewer-ot congress to enact, The con
tentions deliberately argued for the railroad
companies, that the clause II applied to nre-
existing rights viii operate 10 take prop
crty OF railroad companies and therefore
violate the, due process clause Of the fifth
amendment, were all based upon the as
sumption that the clause prohibited and
restricted In accordance with the eonstruc-
ton which the government gave that CLAUSE
and for the .nurpose of enforcing which
prohibitions these suits were brought.
Held Not Cannscat1On.
"As the construction which the govern
ment placed upon the act and seeks to en-
force Is now held to he unsound and as
none Of the contentious relied upon are APP