The Cairo bulletin., 1909-03-09
JUDGE MCPHERSON RENCERS DE-
CISlON ADVERSE TO STATE
IN MISSOURI CASE.
DEATH KNELL SOUNDED
For Low Rates in All States Says At
torney For ailroads-Attor-
ney General Says Appeal
viii Be Taken.

Kansas City, Mo, March S.--Mis
souri's two cent passenger aud maxi
mum freight laws were nullihed by
a decision handed down today IN the
United States District court by Judge
Smith Mcpherson of Red OAK, Ia
As a result ii Is believed that there
will be a quick return in Missouri to
the three-cent fares, and Frank
Hagerman, attorney for the eighteen
companies involved, aserts that to-
days decision sounds the death knall
of the two-cent rate in every state
in the Union.
Mcpherson held that both com
modify and passenger laws were co..
fiscatory and unconstitutional, and
Hagerman declared that it is not con
ceivable that if the two cert rate is
conflscatory in Missouri that it can
be compensatory in other states. The
state. on the other hand, declared
emphatically that MiSsouri's fight for
lower rates would continue. Elliott
w. Major, the newly elected attorney
general who succeeded Herbert s.
Hadley to that office, and was in
court today when the decision was
real. said an appeal wouldi be taken
and that the present legislature will
be asked to pass new rate laws that
would stand the test of the courts.
Governor IIadley made a similar
81 Of IAf
Mcpherson, who rendered today's
decision is the presiding judge of
the United States circuit court for
the southern district of Iowa. He sat
throught the lengthy trial of the case
that has covered several months
time and has worked diligently on
Ais opiaion for inoH.F past He
left tonight for Council Bluffs, la to
Oren court there,
The question" sail Judge Me.
Pherson. lis whether tho traffic
wholly within the state of Missouri
generally referred to in the evidence
as local traffic. can he carried under
the freight rate statute of 1907 and
the passenger fare statute of 1907
at such profit as will give a reason
able return after paying expenses
upon the investment, or whether
such traffic is carried at a loss or less
than such reasonable profit
The court has reached the conclusion
that upon this question the statutory
rates fixed by either and both sta
tutes are not remunerative.
In giving the reasons for such con
clusions the decision says: The I'M
there is a presumption both of fact
and of law in favor of the validity of
every legislative enactment. The rail
way companies have the burden OF
removing this presumption and show
ing that the statute clearly or as
scme courts say, palpably, and others
say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
the statute is invalid In these cases
the court has recognized this rule
The authorities upon this question
form long and unbroken line, with
the single exception of the majority
opinion in the Pennsylvania case de-
cided year ago. (6S All. Rep. 67Gl.
And that one authority is not per-
suasive.
IAN testimony and argument bear
ing upon the question as to what
consideration the legislature of Mis-
souri, gave to these enactments, is
,t4for1,- ip,n, "A tnriaI Muoh u,nc caid
in argument as to the message of
Governor Hughes of New York, two
years ago in declining to approve
the two-cent fare statute of that
state Governor Hughes had the
moral courage to veto measure of
popular favor because as he believed
the question had not been fully con
sidered. But the relations of a gov
ernor to proposeV legislation. and
those of a court to legislation CON
summatei. are entirely different.
Erroneous Belief.
Most of laymen and many lawyers
believe that the question is whether
the railway company as a system is
earning sufficient revenue upon the
value of the property of the system
They believe that if the Burlington,
Santa Fe Wabash, or any other rail
road system is earning such money
as will pay all charges and expenses
including taxes and interest, with
reasonable dividends. to the stock
holders. that state rates for state
business must stand OF course no
one believes this who has given the
slightest attention TO the question
That precise question was before,
and was decided hy Justice Brewer
and affirmed by the supreme court
in the Nebraska case of Smyth V
Amcs. The only question is as to
Missouri rates. less expenses prop
erly charged against the same. And
if this balance does not leave suffi-