The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-05-04
Decision Reversing Lower Court Is Made on Purely Tech-
 niCaI Grounds
COAL ROADS MAY CARRY
 THEIR OWN PRODUCTS
Hepburn Rate Law Is Upheld To Certain Extent, but the Court Says That Laws Must Be Fully
 Complied With.

Washington, May 3.-Tt has been many a day since a decision Of the supreme received with so much interest as was manifested today in the decision of that court in what are now 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 dis trict of Pennsylvania favoraby to the railroads in that the clause of the Hep burn rate law. which prohibits interstate roads from carrying commodities manu- factured. mined or produced directly or indirectly by the roads, was declared un- constitutional and the general impression had been that the decision would he affirmed by the supreme court. When. therefore, there was reversal instead of affirmation the interest was much magnifed.
 When again it was said that reversal was based on technical grounds and that the effect was really favorable to the railroads, sentiment took another turn and those who had been axiously awaiting the announcement of the result found themselves much puzzled. The decision was announced by Judge White. who. while he read from an elaborate printed opinion, declined to give anything more than a summary, showing the net re- suit of the courts finding There was also surprise over the fact that there was no elaborate dissenting opinion, and indeed, only one dissenting opinion of any kind. Because of the courts delay in announcing it's conclusion 1t was general ly supposed to be much divided The dissent was announced by Justice Harlan, who in a few words stated that he did not follow the conclusion of the court on the point that the law does not prohibit the railroad ownership of stock in com modities' producing companies. Analysed Justice Whites decision is that Congress did not transcend its constitutional au- thority in the enactment. of the com modities provision, but on the other hand 1t was held that the governments con struction of the provision had been en- tirely too comprehensive. As construed by the court the sole object of the clause is to prevent carriers from being asso-
 
 transported at the time of transporta- tion. hence that the law only prohibits the transportation of articles when they have been produced by a railway com pany which has not, in good faith parted with them when the company owns or controls, in whole or in part, the com modities to be transported, and when the company has an interest. direct or in- direct, in the commodity, in the legal sense. 1t was especially held, however that the prohibition decision does not apply to the ownership of stock in such a capacity and at the same time trans port the product of that company.
 Ownership of Stock.
 Summed up, the act only compels com panies to disassociate themselves from the products they carry and the con tention of the government that the law applies to the ownership of stock and prohibits the transportation of commod- ties simply because they have been pro- duced by railroad company, regardless of the fact that the company has parted with them is untenable and incapable of enforcement
 It thus appears. first: that the commo- 6ities clause is a vital and operative statute with respect to all products such as coal, which the railroad companies
 
 tion and that the railroads must sell such products to somebody else before they can lawfully ship them, and second: that un- less the act is promptly amended so to include ownership, the railroads can escape the law entirely by converting their direct ownership of coal properties into stock ownership by the organization of subsidiary coal companies.
 The effect of the decision is favorable to ft 4- lDSf practically all points except in the susten- sion of the clause involved. In hold ing that Congress had not gone beyond it's authority in enacting the law the court comedies the right to legislate and it is believed, if so disposed, Congress might enlarge and extend the scope of the pro- vision. Hence, while the railroads gain a practical victory the government is not confronted by constitutional bar from further acting in the direction of control Of the roads in the matter of the ship ment of their own commodities.
 The cases made their first appearance in the supreme court on October 10. last. They were argued during the month of January and the decision has been anxi- ously awaited ever since the latter date. The decision sustained the provision of the law exempting timber from the op- eration of the clause. This exemption was used as a basis of attack by the rail- roads on the law as discriminatory, but Justice White refuses to accept that view.
 Summary of Opinion.
 The following is a summary of the opin- ion in the commodities clause:
 1. The claim of the government that the provision contained in the Hepburn act approved June 29, 1905, commonly called the commodities clause. prohibiting a railway company from moving commo- dities In interstate commerce because the company has manufactured. mined. or produced them. or owned them in whole or in part or has had an interest, direct
 
 ~<,~rv.~rurnr~ <H n <-u ~A