The sun., 1910-07-08

Union Pacific lines to use the Northern
Pacific line between Portland and Seattle
on precisely the same terms - pA-sen-
gers who travelled the whole distance
between the East and the Pacific slope by
the lines Of the northern Pacific itself
The comnliHsion's order vns based upon
what was supposed TO BE- the personal
preference n many travellers to 90 west
ward nv the more southerly route, enab-
ling them 20 visit cities and view scenery
not accessible by the northern line. II
was not pretended that the Cpion Pacific
route was shorter or its running time
less. On the contrary It appeared that
th" Advantages in these respects were
with the northern route: and il was con-
Ceded that the passenger over the north
ern route was provided with "a good a
car and A. good a beTth and "A good a
meal IA were furnished on the other.
The opinion Of the Supreme Court was
written by Nr Justice OLIVER WENDELL
HOLMES II laws down two important
rifles of law in relation to the power Of
the Interstate Commerce Commission
In establish Though routes and joint
rates. The first is that the Interstate
Commerce Commission as no power
To make such an order II a reasonable
and satisfactory through route already
exists, and that the question may be
inquired into by the courts, which are
not bound by the decision Of the COM
mission. The second proposition Of Law
established by the decision is that when
one through route exists which ia reason
able and satisfactory the fact that the
public would prefer another which il
not shorter or better does not justify
an adjudication by the commission that
no reasonable or satisfactory through
route exists As Mr.. Justice HoLMBs
points out, il cannot be truly said that
there is no reasonable or satisfactory
through route simply because the public
would prefer two such routes instead
of one. and he warns the commission
that the condition in the statute il not
to be trifed away.
No one can read the record in this
notable interstate commerce case with
out realizing that there is considerable
danger that the Interstate Commerce
Commission may unduly magnify its
Office. II il satisfactory TO observe,
however, that the members OF the COM
mission were not unanimous in direct
ing the issuance of the Objectionable
order There are seven commissioners
two Of them. MARTIN A. KNAPP Of New
York. the chairman. and EDGAR T.
CLARK of Iowa. dissented, in an able
opinion by the chairman, which was
commended by the supreme Court. He
set forth the view which has now pre-
vailed tersely and ably in these words:
In my judgment all that can he ssEsd by .
person seeking transportation from. say. Chicago
IN Tacona IL expedition and comforta table passage
between 'Ao's 7o'H's N he desires stopoveT
privileges o. 10 visit cities which are no, upon the
reasonable route slready established he is asking
an additional service or privilege for which extra
compensation may properly be enacted. The
b%eucs Of opportunities Of this or the lack Of
attractive scenery doas not make NE quickest and
otherwise satisfactory route en- Unreasonable one
10 he conds nped as Inadequate BY the commls
sion
II iS satisfactory az all events to be
reminded by this important and sig
nificant decision that there il a court
above.