The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-02-25
STATE AND RAILROAD
REVERSE THEMSELVES
In North Dakota Each Side
Adopts the Position Usually
Taken by the Other.

WASHINGTON. Feb. 2i.-Whetncr Il
state may fin maXImum rate ON COM
modify or Interstate commerce below the
cost OF transportation was the basis for
Al keen argument today before the su-
premc court Of the United states The
legal representatives OF The state OF
North Dakota defended the constitution
ality OF the state law of 1907. hXng the
rate on coal and counsel FOR the North
ern Pacific Railway company attacked IL
as designating rate below the cost OF
service.
Attorney General Miller and Attorneys
I. i. McCuc and Guy G. II. Coriss had
filed 6ricf In defense OF the decision
rendered ny the supreme court OF North
Dakota In favor OF Lhc law. Charles W.
Bunn. general counsel FOR the Northern
Pacific. had presented a brief attacking
court.
The counsel lor the state arsucG that
The reason why the cost of service was
not controlling where single rate was
involved was two fold. In tho first
place il was COntendcd. IL was impossible
10 determine with anything like acCur-
acy what such cost Of service was. In
The second place, there was no injury TO
tho equitable title of the carrier as Il re-
suit OF the cost OF service not being CON
trolling. as long MS the carrier was al
lowed on the whole 10 earn fair profit
on the investment in the business. Fur
thcrmorc. IL was contended thai other cle-
'mcntS may serve TO make the rate a rea-
sonablc one, though il is less than the
theoretical cost Of service. In the case
Of the rate on coal. Il was argued that
III NAV bC entirely reasonable for the
state To pat IN force a low rate for The
purpose OF developing n great natural re-
source by stimulating The purchase Of
local coal in place of foreign coal through
the reduction in the cost of the former.
AS 10 the argument that the reduc-
don ot the rate on coal meant an addi-
uonal burden on other commodities coun-
sci for the state contendcd that il was
Peter 10 pay Paul" According to their
point of view the subject was neither
more or less than case OF proper rate
classification, with the incidental result
weight oi expense than another
\ vigorous attack was made on other
arguments of the railroad III the doc
irino COniendcd for by counsel FOR the de-
PENDANTS be sustained by this court" said
the counsel for the state. "the decision
Will not merely mark an epoch-it viii
inaueurate a revolution in the develop
ment Of the LAW relating 10 the resula
tion of transportation charges by the rail
WAYS Of the country"
II was said that the result of decision
in accordance with tho contention Of the
railroads would he 10 cripple seriously. If
not practically to destroy the ratc-malS-
lng power OF the nation and of every stale.
The burden of proof is upon the rail-
cut down the net earnings OF the rail
road from purely Interstate business be-
low the point of a fair profit" said tho
states counsel There is no evidence
as To the gross receipts from purely iutra-
state business. NO evidence rs TO the
gross expense properly chargeable to
such business: and no proof OF the value
OF the property which may ne fairly said
to he engag ged in the carrying on OF such
business Ii therefore stands admitted
upon thts record chat despite the rate in
question. these defendants can earn ut
least fair profit upon their purely intra-
state business.
on the other hand. the counsel for the
Northern Pacific contended that in order
to he constitutional. the rate must per-
mt a fair amount OF profit for the rail-
road
''No one can contend il TO be necessary
for the protection OF the public said
the railroads. counsel. that any rate be
fixed by legislative authority below the
cost OF furnishing the service. Such