The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-11-20
CONTEST OF COMMISSIONS.

The contest long expected between
the State Railways Commissions and
the Interstate Commerce Commission
broke out uurcstraincdly in tho Ma
tional Association of Railway Commits
sioners in Washington on Thursday.
Mr. Earle, State Railway Commits
sioncr from South Carolina, accused the
Interstate Commerce Commission Of
meddling in his State S affairs, and of
blocking the way OF State Commis
sioners in their efforts TO control rail
way traffic and charges within the
State lines.
This form of conflict would ncces-
sarily arise The difficulty is that
State Commissioners refuse to sec the
proper limitations Of their jurisdiction.
They undertake TO deal with that part
Of interstate commerce which arises or
terminates within the boundaries of
their States. They refuse TO see that
this sort of commerce is properly classi-
fled under tho interstate commerce
clause of the constitution, and is out
side of their jurisdiction. State Com
missioners as a rule are very 10th to
confine themselves TO the railway traf,
fic that begins and is completed en-
tircly within their State, They want
10 deal also with the traffic that comes
into their State and that which goes
out Of il. Naturally, the Interstate
Commerce Commission claims and ex-
a, 81
rightly so, because otherwise interstate
commerce would be subject 10 local in
reference in every State whcre il
originated or terminated. But it is
manifest that such local interference
would. if generally exercised, largely
supcrscde the office. the power. and
the work Of the Interstate Commerce
Commission. II is inevitable, there
fore. that the State Railway Commits
sion must give way on this point. Their
jurisdiction must necessarily be con
fined to that traffic which both origi
mates and terminates within their own
State. And even so, where part of the
transportation might he through an
other State and back to the State OF
origin, the question would arise as to
whether the Interstate Commerce Com
mission did not have jurisdiction there
also But with respect TO transporta-
ton which comes from another State
or j. billed to go into another State,
there is no doubt whatever of the
jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce
Commission TO entirely superscde the
State Railway Commission. This is so
plain n case that il needs 10 argument.
1t is plain under the express and un.
qualified terms Of the Federal Consti.
tuition. and it is plain in the nature Of
tho case, since otherwise the Interstate
! Commerce Commission could be super
seeded by the concerted action of The
| several State Commissions.
In this particular case. Mr., Mosely,
speaking for the Interstate Commerce
Commission, contemptuouslv responded
TO Mr.. Earle that he did not care
whether the State Railway Commission
accepted the Interstate Commerce
Commission s demurrage rate or not.
AS matter of fact, the Federal Off
Gals do not need to care very much
whether the laws, rules. and regulations
it adopts arc acceptable to the State
Railway Commission or not. SO far as
interstate commerce is concerned, for
as 10 that commerce the Interstate
Commerce Commission is and must re-
main supreme.
Still, the friction was bound TO oc-
cnr. Perhaps il is natural that il
should occur in South Carolina, where