Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1909-05-03
COMMODITIES
CLAUS VALID.
lJ,5s. supreme Court Holds Con-
gress Had q Right 70
Enact 1t.
SPECULATION OF j COMMERCE c; N Il ]; ! !:
4 REGULATION OF c c; ! N i i; c
f,eoisjon Gives No lntimation Of
Character Of DEGREES to
Be Entered.
a. .n,rectlon to Court Below Was to
Enforce and Apply Statute
AS Now Construed. 8

washington, May s.-'That the 9coni-
,,,odities clause, of the Interstate
.s,nmercc act Of 1906, known as the
IJa,b,,rn rate law, is constitutional was
B +. 4 e ~ declared today by the supreme
sa,,rt 81 the United States. The dect n
.as,f,,as announced by Justice White.
THO court reversed and remanded tne
dec,sion of the u. s. circuit court, put
~ onlv directions were to enforce and
anply the statute as It is now con-
strlled.
Briefly summarized, tho decision OF
+ the supreme court in the commodities
cla,,se cases holds the law to be con-,
stitutlonal, but it does not concede the
contentions of the government as 70 It's
SCOPE. An especial exception was a as
Il "a The ownership Of stock In Inherent
corporation which 1t was held did NOT
nrohibit transportation under the
terms of the law. 1t was also held that
n,vnership OF the commodity applied
univ to the time Of the transportation.
If before transporting it the rail-
road company has In good faith parted
with a commodity it may carry 1t. The
principal point OF the decision was IN
relation to the railroads holding the
stock OF subordinate companies and ON
that Important point, the finding was
favorable to the roads.
Justice Harlan dissented on the stock
feature, but otherwise the decision was,
,inanimous.
In the commodities clause the SUI
q nren,,, cour. today held that the clause
( Is a regulation of commerce which Com
K gress has the right to enact.
The supreme court reversed and re-
manded the decision of the United
States circuit court lin the comrnod ties
clause cases but did not give dis
recticlis as to the character Of DEGREES.
which shall be entered. The Only diren-s
lions We're to enforce and apply the
& statute as 1t Is now construed.
SUMMARY OF OPINION.
The following is summary of the
opinion In the commodities cases:
.l--Thelclaim Of the government that
the5provision contained inSthe Hepburn
act approved June 90, 1905, commonly
called the commodities clause, prohibits
arairoad company from moving COM
inodities in interstate commerce be-
cause the company has manufactured,
in whole or in part. or has had an In
tfrest direct or indirectin them, wholly
Irrespective Of the relation or connec-
ton Of the carrier with the commodi-
4 ties ut the time OF the transportation.
isgdeeided to be untenable. 1t is also
decided that the provision of the COM
inodities clause relating to interest dl-
rect Or Indirect, does not embrace an
& interest which a carrier may have in a
iNrr r,f
the ownership by the carrier of stock in
such corporation, irrespective OF the
amount of sock which the carrier may
own In such corporation. provided the
corporation has been organized in good
faith.
TWo-Reiecting the construction
placed by the government upon the
commodities clause, 1t is decided that
Z that clause when all its provisions
are tremendously construed has solely
Tor its object to prevent carriers en-
gagged in interstate commerce from
being associated in interest With the
transportation with the commodities
transported and therefore the com-
modities clause only prohibits rail-.
road companies engaged in interstate
commerce from transporting such
p commerce commodities under the fol-
leWlng circumstances and
,.(A) When the commodity has
I been manufactured, mined or pros
euced bSea railway company or un-
der its authority and at the time of
transportation the & railwaS company
mas not in good faith before the act
OF transportation passed with its in
tefest in such commodity; (b), when
The railway company owns the COM
modify to be transported in whole or
III part; (c). when the railway com.
pahy at the time of the transportation
has interest direct or indirect in 9.
4 legal sense in the commodity, which
last provision does not apply to the
commodity manufactured, mined, pro-
y duced, owned, etc. by corporation be-
cause railway company is stock
Aoider in such corporations. Such own
efship Of stock in producing company
pF 4 railway company does not cause
" as the owner of the stock to have
legal interest in the commodity manu-
Iaetured, etc, by the producing corpor-
inird-As thus construed the COM
& lllpuities clause is regulation OF CONF
it.srce within the power of Congress to
enact The contentious elaborately arr
sueu FOR the railroad companies, tint
.sl'hg rights will operate to take
= PROPERTY OF railroad companies and
therefore violate the due process
em1, Of the fifth amendment, were
81 based on the assumption that the
o.ause prohibited and restricted In ac-
..pFd2nce with the construction which
me government gave that clause and
s .ol me purpose of enforcing which
nf,o9h.lblttons these suits were brought.
AS the construction the govern
!, - l,,e ~ placed upon the act and seeks
" enforce is now held to be unsound
,,,la as none OF the contentious relied
e apoM are applicable to the act as now
ety ,ld because under such con-
,..s. the act merely enforces a
K r,s suia' alton of commerce by which carr
,i HTS are compelled to dissasociate
themselves e. from the products which
~. NY carry and does not prohibit
tbs eie me carry is not associated with
,ha commodity carried, 1T follows that
,i IN eosnentions on the subject Of the
~ amendment are without merit.
coa the exemption as to timber, ETC.,
7 , av.l.alhed III the clause is not re-
pu.g Z. al to the Constitution.
ai,i ST.Ine provision adopted as to PEN
y;s sies Is separable from the other pro-
na s,ons OF the act. As no recovery Of
esrs,is vas prayed for, no Issue con-
Win ing ing them is hereby presented. 1t
s,.' ~, 9e tine enough to consider wheth-
s. sie Tisht to recover penalties ex.