The Cairo bulletin., 1909-05-04
RAILROADS GET
THE BEST Of II
DECISION OF SUPREME COURT
ON CoMODlTiES CLAUSE
CASE TECHNICAL.
May CARRY PRODUCTS
ed They Sell Before Shipping
Can Evade Law BY Own
ing Stock.

Washington, May Sit has been
many "a day since decision of the
supreme court Of the United States
has been received with so much inter
est as was manifested today in the
decision of that court in what are
known as the commodities clause
eases affecting the anthracite coal
carrying railroads. These eases had
been decided by the United States
circuit court for the eastern district
of Pennsylvania fayorably to the rail
roads in that the clause of the Hep
burn rate law which prohibits inter
state railroads from carrying commo-
dities manufactured. mined or pro
roads, was declared unconstitutional,
and the general impression had been
that tae decision would be atlIrme |
by the supreme court
Reversal
When therefore, there was a rc-
versal instead of an affirmation the
interest was much magnilied. When.
again, it was foWrd that the reversal
was based on technical grounds and
that the effect was really favorable
to the railroads, sentiment took an.
other turn, and those who had been
anxiously awaiting the announcement
ii the result found themselves much
puzzled.
The courts judgment was al
nounced by Justice White, who, while
he read from an elaborate opinion,
declined to give out anything more
than summary, showing the net re-
suit of the courts finding. There was
also surprise over the fact that the,c
We're no elaborate dissenting opin-
ions and indeed only one dissenting
opinion Of any kind.
Because of the courts delay in an
nouncing its conclusion, it was gen
orally supposed that the court would
be found 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 in the point that the law
does not prohibit railroad ownership
of stock in commodities producing
companies
Congress Had Right.
The analysis of Justice Whites de-
cision is that congress did not trans.
cend its constitutional authority in
the commodities provision. but on the
other hand, it was held that the gov.
ernments construction of the provis-
iu. had been entirely too compreher-
sive. As construed by the court the
sole object of the clause is to prevent
carrier from being associated in
interest with the commodities trans
ported at the time of transportation,
hence that the law only prohibits the
transportation of articles when they
have beun 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 commodity to be transported and
when the company has am interest, di-
rect or indirect, in the commodity in
legal sense.
How 1t Does Not Apply.
was especially held, however that
the prohibition does not apply to the
ownership Of stock in a producing
company but a carrier may own stock
in such company. and at the same
time transport the product of that
company.
Summed up, the act only compels
companies to disassociate themselves
from the products they carry and the
contention of the government that the
lay applies to the ownership of stock
and prohibits the transportation of
commodities simply because they
have been produced by a railroad
company, regardless of the fact that
the company has parted with them,
is untenable and Incapable of enforce
ment.
1t thus appears, first, that the COM
modities clause is vital and opera
tive statute with respect to all prod
uets, such as coal. which the railroad
compa2ies actually own at the time
of transportation. and that the rail
roads must sell such products to
somebody else before they can law
fully ship them, and second, that un-
less the act is promptly amended so
as to include stock ownership. a rail-
road can escape the law entirely by
converting their direct ownership of
coal properties into stock ownership
by an organization of subsidiary coal
companies.
Favors Railroads.
The effect of the decision under the
existing conditions is favorable to the
railroads and the government lost on
practically all points except in the
sustenation of the principle involved.
qn hol&ng that leongress had not