The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1909-05-05
THE RAILROADS WIN.
ROADS May OWN STOCK IN
HOLDING CONCERNS.
Carriers May Transport Goods of
Companies Whose Securities They
Possess-NO Constitutional Bar to
Extent of Law.

! Washington, May 3.--It has beer
many day since decision of the
Supreme Court Of the United States
has been received with as much in
terest as was manifested today in the
decision of that court in what are
known as the commodities clause"
cases, affecting the anthracite coal
| carrying railroads.
| These cases had been decided by
the United States Circuit Court for the
eastern district Of Pennsylvania fav-
orably to the railroads in that the
clause of the Hepburn rate law, which
prohibits Interstate railroads from
carrying commodities manufactured,
maintained or produced directly or
| indirectly by the railroad was de-
| clared unconstitutional and the gem
eral impression had been that that de-,
cision would be affirmed by the Su-
preme Court. When, therefore, there
was a reversal instead of an affirna-
tion. the interest was much magnified.
When again it was found that the re-
| versal was based on technical grounds
and that the effect was really favor
able to the railroads, sentiment took
| another turn, and those who had been
anxiously awaiting the announcement
oe the result found themselves much
puzzled.
The courts Judgment was ANNOUNCE
ed by Justice White, who, while he
read from an elaborate printed opin-
ion. declined to give out anything
| more than a summary showing the
net result of the courts finding. There
was also surprise over the fact that
there were no elaborate dissenting
opinions and indeed only one dissent
ing opinion Of any kind The dissent
was announced by Judge Harlan, who
In few words stated that he did not
follow the conclusion Of the court on
the one point that the law does not
prohibit the railroad ownership of
stock in commodities-produci COM
panies.
Analysed, Justice Whites decision
| Is that congress did not transcend it's
constitutional authority in the enact
| ment Of the commodities provision.
but on the other hand 1t was held
that the governments construction OF
the provision was entirely too COM
a @ iyyo Ac
court, the sole object Of the clause is
to prevent carriers from being asso-
ciated in interest with the commo-
dities transported at the time of
transportation. hence that the law
only prohibits the transportation of
articles when they have been pro-
duced by railway company which
has not. in good faith. parted with
them; when the company owns or
controls in whole or In part. the COM
modify to be transported, and when
the company has an interest direct or
indirect In the commodity in a legal
sense. It was especially held, how
ever. that the prohibition does not ap-
ply to the ownership of stock in a
producing company. but that carrier
may own stock in such a company,
and at the same time transport the
product Of that company. Summed
up, the action only compels the roads
to disassociate themselves from the
products they carry and the contention
of the government that the law ap-
plies to the ownership Of stock and
prohibits the transportation of COM
modities simply because they have been
produced by railroad company, re-
gardless OF the fact that the company
has parted with them. is untenable
and incapable Of enforcement.
1t thus appears, first, that the COM
modes clause Is vital and opera
tive statute with respect to all prod
ucts, such as coal, which the railroad
companies actually own at the time
OF transportation, and that the rail-
roads must sell such products to
SoIHeDouy else DeIOTe tney lawfully
ship them; and second, that unless
the act is promptly amended so as to
include stock ownership, the railroads
can escape the law entirely by con-
verting their direct ownship Of coal
properties into stock ownership by
the organization Of subsidiary coal
companies.
The effect Of the decision under ex-
listing conditions is favorable to the
railroads and the government lost on
practically all points except In the
sustension Of the principle involved.
In holding that congress had not gone
beyond its authority in enacting the
ho aaxaaadad lila ~