The Washington times., 1911-11-01
LIBERALIZATION OF THE
COMMON CARRIERS.

founding those guessers who are wont
to assume that one decision constitutes
q logical precedent for another in an
apparently related line of litigation.
1t will very likely do 90 again, when
n sits on the Minnesota rate case, and
decides whether it will apply the seem
ing precedent of the safety appliance
decision to the business rate regulation.
In the matter Of safety appliances
the Court yesterday held that all rail.
roads engaged In interstate commerce
must comply with the Federal law con.
cerning safety appliances. 1t distinctly
makes the Federal law not merely gu.
perior, but in this realm exclusive.
While conclusion 10 impossible without
study of the complete text of the
Courts opinion, it would seem to erase
all State laws on the subject and to
substitute the Federal code for them.
The manner Of the Courts reasoning
seems to warrant the impression that
this decision is q forerunner of q like
decision as to traffic rates and regula-
tions. The argument presented by Mr..
Justice Van Devanter is certainly one
which would just as accurately apply
to the making of rates. He points out
that interstate and intrastate traffic
are constantly intermingled throughout
the whole fabric of railroads bust
ness. They are often carried in the
same car, constantly in the same train
Moreover, he suggests, the different
trains are not independent in point OF
movement and safety; train moving
interstate business and one doing only
State business might conceivably be
mixed in a disaster, one causing acci'
dent to the other. Therefore both must
have the equipment the Federal law
/ demands.
All this accurately applies to the
question of rates. In the Minnesota
rate case the circuit court held that q
State might not impose such reguia'
tions of State traffic as could affect
interstate rates. Tho argument was
in effect, that If the State unduly re-
duced its rates within its own borders
then the railroad company might have
to raise interstate rates in order tc
make up for losses on State freightage
and this would be regulation of inter
state business by State authority
perhaps to the. injury of business Of
other States. ..
This Circuit Court decision is the
one which inspired the State governors
at their Spring Lake conference tt
name a committee to present in Su'
preme Court a brief in behalf of the
States rights of regulation. It caused
much alarm among the State authori
ties, but the alarm was based, mainly
on the fear that the Federal courts
might destroy the States powers Of
regulation, without projecting the
Federal power over the field of STATE
traffic, and thus leave purely State
business free from all regulation.
The safety appliance decision points
the purpose of taking over to Fedora
jurisdiction any zone from which Stat.
control is excluded. This is the cru,
of the whole matter. Almost everybody
is now agreed that a single control il
preferable to dual, and the only pos
sible single control is manifestly tina
of the National Government. If thi
shall prove to be the position of tn
court as to rates and charges. and /
the Minnesota and related cases shal
call forth clear, unmistakable pro
nouncements of the national purpos
to assume full authority and power
then the situation will be greatly sim
i plified and improved. 1t will be q lon,
step toward concentration of all powe
over commerce in the Federal Admins
tration; and that concentration will b
a long beginning toward the solution
of the greatest, most difficult admins
trative problems of the times.