The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-05-04

| in interstate commerce because the com
/ pany has manufactured, mined or pro-
! duced them, or owned them In Whole or
! in part. or has had an interest oirSct
or indirect in them. wholly irresPecuNe
! of the relation or connection OF the car
! rier with the commodities at the time
OF the transportation, is decided TO he
untenable. 1t is also decided mat 'he
| provision Of the commodities clause re-
! lating to interest direct or indirect, does
not embrace an interest which carrier
may have in a producing corporation as
rier Of stock in such corporation, ire
sDective OF the amount OF stock which
! the carrier may own In such corporation,
| provided the corporation has Deen organ
| ized in good faith.
Basis of Decision.
The announcement as to the commodi-
! ties clause was made in deciding the
J twelve injunction and mandamuS cases
! brought by the government against the
Delaware & Hudson. the Erie, the New
! Jersey Central and Delaware g. Jacks-
! wanna, the Pennsylvania and the Lehlgh
| Valley railroads. The cases came TO the
| court from the United States circuit court
! for the eastern district of Pennsylvania.
! whose decision, as announced by Judge
! George Gray in 1908, attracted much at
tention. They originated in the circuit
! court, and In its petition the government
! charged that the railroad companies were
| engaged In transporting in interstate COM
| merce anthracite coal mined by them
selves on their own mines which are To-
| Gated in Pennsylvania. The Hepburn act
makes II unla wful 'ffor any railroad COM
! pany to transport from any state TO any
| other state or TO any foreign country
any article or commodity other than tim
| Der manufactured, mined or produced By
| II, or under its authority or which may
own in whole or in part, or in which
! direct. except such articles or comnodt-
ties as may he necessary and intended for
Its use in the conduct or its business as
common carrier.
Circuit Court View.
The circuit court decided against the
as It alleged, II deprivcs the corporations
| of their liberty and OF property in a
way that Is prohibited by the fifth amend
ment TO the constitution. 1t was also
| held by the court that the clause not
! directly but indirectly" works 81 practi-
cal confiscation OF the property OF the
invalid and 'in its nature and effect q
! discrminative prohibition"
That verdict was reversed by today's
| decision.
>. Rejecting the construction placed by
| the government upon the commodities
clause, il is decided that that clause.
! construed has solely for its object to pre-
vent carriers engaged in interstate COM
rnerce from being associated in interest
with the transportation with the com
modities transported and therefore the
commodities clause only prohibits railroad
companies engaged In interstate COM
.
commodities under the following circum-
. stances and conditions;
Extent of Restrictions,
(a) When the commodity has been
! manufactured, mined or produced by a
railway company or under its authority
and at the time Of transportation the
| railway company has not In good faith
before the act of transportation passed
with its interest in such commodity; (b)
when the railway company owns the corn
-t1I -1..fn ~,
part; (c) when the railway company al
the time OF the transportation has in
tcrest direct or indirect In legal sense
in the commodity. which last provision
docs not apply to the commodity manu-
featured. mined. produced owned. etc, by
corpora tlon; because railway company
Such ownership OF stock In q producing
company by a railway company does
not cause 1t as the owner. of the stock
TO have legal interest in the commodity
manufactured, etc, by the producing cor
! poratton-
3. AS thus construed the commodities
clause is a regulation Of commerce within
the power Of commerce to enact The
contentious elaborately argued for the
railroad companies that the clause, u
applied to pre- existing rights. will opcr
ate to take property OF railroad com
panies and therefore violate the due pro-
cess clause Of the fifth amendment were
all based on the assumption that the
clause prohibited and restricted in &C.
cordance with the construction which the
government gave mat clause and for Tho
, purpose OF enforcing which prohibition!
these suits were brought
Where Government Failed.
AS the construction the government
placed upon the act and seeks TO enforce
= is now held 10 be unsound and non,
Of the contentious relied upon Dre ap
: plica bic to the act now construed
| because under such construction the ac
merely enforces q regulation Of commerc'
by which carriers are compelled 10 dis
A.. N h. ,,,-t
which they carry and docs not prohibI
9 where the carrier is not associated Will
5 tho commodity carried. IL follows ihs
, the contentious on the subject of tn
| fifth amendment arc without merit.
4. The exemption as 10 timber etc, con
! tanned in the clause ia not repugnant L
$ the constitution.
9. The provision adopted as to penaltie
1 is separable from the other provisions o
p | the act. AS no recovery Of penalties Wa
prayed for. no issue concerning them {
: hereby presented. It Will be time enoug
10 consider whether the right to recove
s penalties exists when an attempt 10 col
y lect penalties is made
a 6. AS the construction now given th
act differs so widely from the construc
J. ton which the government gave to tn
= act and which il was the purpose of thes
1 suits TO enforce, II Is held that II Is no
necessary, In reversing and rsmandIng t
direct the character OF decree which Rha
be entered. but simply TO reverse and re
inand the case with directions To cnforc
= and apply the statute as 1t ls now con
strued.
r Z. As the Delaware & Hudson comps n
I is engaged n common carrier by raj
! Continued or Page Two.