The Mathews journal. (Mathews C.H. [Court House]) 1903-1937, 1909-05-06

Washington, d. c. (SpeciaD.--
1t has been many day since a deci-
sion of the Supreme Court of the
United States has been received with
so much interest as was manifested
in the decision Of the court in what
are known as the commodities
clause" cases, affecting the anthra-
cite coal-carrying railroads. These
cases had been decided by the Uni
ted States Circuit Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania ia
vorably to the railroads in that the
clause OF the Hepburn rate law,
which prohibits interstate railroads
from carrying commodities manufac-
tured, mined or produced directly or
indirectly by the roads was declared
unconstitutional, and the general i'm
preston had been that the decision
would be affirmed by the Supreme
Court. When, therefore, there was
a reversal instead of an affirmation
the interest was much magnified.
When, again, 1t was found that the
reversal was based on technical
anu ludl TIC WAS real
ly favorable to the railroads, senti-
mcnt took another turn, and those
who had been anxiously awaiting the
announcement OF the result found
themselves much puzzled.
The courts judgment was an
nounced by Justice White, who,
while he read from an elaborate
printed opinion, declined to give out
anything moro than summary
showing the net result of the court s
finding. There was also surprise
over the fact that there were no
elaborate dissenting opinion and, in
deed, only one dissenting opinion of
any kind. Because OF the court s
delay in announcing it's conclusions
1t was generally supposed that
the court would be found to be
much divided. The dissent was an
nounced by Justice Harlan, who in a
Few words stated that he did not
follow the conclusion of the court
on the one point that the law does
not prohibit the railroad ownership
or stock in commodities-prod
companies.
Analysed, Justice Whites decision
is that Congress did not transcend
It's constitutional authority in the
enactment of the commodities pro-
vision, but, on the other hand. it
was held that the governments con-
struction of the provision had been
entirely too comprehensive. AS con-
strued by the court, the sole object
or the clause is to prevent carriers
from being associated in interest with
the commodities transported at the
time of transportation; hence that
the law only prohibits the transpor-
tation of articles when they have
been produced by a railroad COM
pany which has not In good faith
parted with them; when the COM
pany owns or controls, in whole or
in part, the commodity to be trans
ported, and when the company has
an interest, direct or indirect. in the
commodity in a legal sense. 1t was
especially held, however, that the
prohibition does not apply to the
ownership of stock in a producing
company, but that a carrier NAV own
stock In such company and at the
same time transport the product of
that company.
summed up, the act only compels
companies to dissoeiate themselves
from the products they carry. and
the contention of the government
thet the law applies to ownership of
stock and prohibits the transporta-
ton OF commodities simply because
they have been produced by a rail-
road company, regardless of the
1act that the company has parted
win them, is untenable and incap-
able of enforcement.