New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1909-08-25

Company and number OF important shipping
interests interviewed as co-complainants.
The question raised" said Judge Grosscup IN
rendering the majority opinion in It's larger
aspects is not so much question between the
shippers and the railroads as between the COM
mercial' and manufacturing interests of Denver
and Of the territory east OF the Mississippi River
the one side and the commercial and manu-
featuring interests Of the Missouri River cities
on the other"
Speaking Of the power Of the commission. the
opinion says:
We are not prepared 20 say the commission
has not the power enter upon plan looking
toward system Of rates wherein the rates for
longer and shorter hauls viii taper downward
according 10 distance. providing such tapering
is both comprehensively and symmetrically APP
ped-applied with a design of carrying out
what may be the economic fact that. on the
whole, il is worth something less a mile 10
carry freight long distances than shorter dis
tanCes
But IL does not follow that power of that
character includes power by the of differen-
tials. artfcially divide the country into trade
zones tributary to given trade and manufactur-
Ing centres. the commission in such cases hav-
ing. a result. 10 predetermine what the trade
and manufacturing centres shall be; for such
power. vaster than any one body Of men has
heretofore exercised. though wisely eXerted IN
specific instances. would be putting into the
hands Of the commission the general power OF
life and death over every trade and manufact-
uring centre In the United States.
A QUESTION OF POWER.
The opinion holds that the commission in at
tempting TO enforce its order sought 10 exercise
this colossal power The opinion states that
much testimony was heard from various sections
OF the country to show the effect the proposed
new rate would have The opinion continues:
But in the case here the question involved is
not a question of fact. but a question of power;
the question is not whether by the Application
rairaln rfs.Gra rat has
but whether the principles applied are them
selves within the power OF the commission; for
Congress did not intend 10 confer upon the COM
mission power TO do by indrectiOn what il could
the word reasonable" every power over the
trade and manufacturing of the country that
the commission should determine il was reason
able that II (the cOmmission) should possess.
Again il is urged that though the effect OF
the order in the Missouri River rate case is u
discriminate in favor OF the Atlantic seaboard
and the Missouri River cities against the CEN
trail traffic territory. and I'm the Denver case in
country against the Missouri River cities. the
discrimination Is not undue" within the mean
ing Of the interstate commerce act, and that
therefore the courts have power 10 enjoin.
The difficulty with this argument is that Il
draws no distinction between the power that the
commission is actually given and power that
the commission is usurping.
II must be understood. however. that these
orders OF the commission are enjoined solely
because. IN our Judgment. they lay upon the
commerce and manufacturing Of the localities
affected. "A artificial hand that Congress never
intended should be put forth. and therefore are
outside the power conferred upon the commits
sion by Congress-: for with the question OF
reduction in rate or readjustment Of rates
from which such artificial results have been
eliminated, we are not now dealing.