The San Francisco call., 1910-04-24
STATE RAILWAY
LAW NULLIFIED
Decision of U. S. Supreme Court
Said TO Have Made De-
murrage Act Void
Holds That Interstate Commerce
Rules Have Precedence Over
All Other Regulations

Through the Interpretation given a
recent decision Of the United states
supreme court the scope of state legis-
lation affecting railroads is rigidly re
stricted so that it may not interfere
with the efficiency OF the interstate
commerce commission.
In California. according TO Railroad
commissioner H. d. Loveland. the rul-
ing Of the supreme court may. have the
force Of nullifying the Miller reciprocal
domurrage act passed at the last ses-
sion Of the legislature. particularly in
that part in which the act fixes the
demurrage charge on interstate ship
ments at Sc day. The federal law
fixes the demurrage charge at 81 a day
The case decided by the supreme
court involves the state of Arkansas
rs. the st. Louis and Southwestern
railroad. The decision was handed
down by Justice White and concurred
in by all the members Of the court,
with the exception OF Chief Justice
Fuller.
FAILS TO DELIVER CARS
a law was passed by the legislature
Of Arkansas, known as rule No. 305.
prior to October, 1905. making it the
duty Of a carrier TO deliver the cars
under orders. The St Louis and
Southwestern failed 10 deliver the cars
demanded, and was penaliZed 1880
Its defense was that it was impossible
10 supply the cars TO the Arkansas
shippers in the number desired with
out interfering with the demands of
other states ia which the line operated.
The court held that il was impossible
for the road TO supply the cars with
out affecting the efficiency Of inter
state commerce and ruled in favor of
the railroad.
state Railroad Commissioner Love
land wrote TO Interstate Commerce
Commissioner Franklin X Lane asking
for an opinion on the law. Lane re-
piled:
You will note that the court holds
as unconstitutional a state reciprocal
demurrage law applying only 10 state
business on the ground that it inter
feres with the efficiency Of the inter-
state carrier. In the light Of this
decision is il not extremely doubtful
whether q state has any jurisdiction
over demurra ge charges of any char
acter? In short may a state legisla-
tUre or q state commission impose upon
\ carrier any rules which may inter
fere with its efficiency as agents Of
interstate commerce."
MAY AFFECT LAW
The decision Of the supreme court"
said Commissioner LoVeland, might
affect the recent act of the state legisla-
ture, the Miller bin, whereby was es-
tablished a demurrage charge of Sc a
DAY on the shipper who failed to un-
load his cars within IS hours after the
arrival of the goods. In interstate
commerce the charge is 81 q day.
For instance. take the case of ship
ments Of cement A dealer might buy
California cement. If he failed to un-
load ii he would have to pay a demur-
rage OF Sc a day. His competitor might
buy Nevada or German cement. If he
failed to unload his consignment he
would pay demurrage charge Of only
81 2 day. That would work seriously
against the California shipper. Any
thing that affects the shipper affects
the efficiency Of the carrier. In view
Of the decision of the United States
court il is doubtful if the California
law would stand"