The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1911-09-20

The last half of the nineteenth CEN
Jury witnessed a strong movement
toward the Capitalization of power III
he national government. Immediate
" following Secession the pendulum
swung far in the opposite direction
The bitterness generated by the war
which crushed the rebellion caused
the people to demand a strongly CEN
tralized government.
With the beginning of the twentieth
century came the great general move
ment toward consolidation OF indus
tries and transportation lines and n
nancial institutions. These vast com
binations manifested disposition to
encroach upon the rights of the in
dividual, and the people, led by some
of those who had previously cried out
against Capitalization, demanded act
ion by the government that would
protect consumer from the trusts.
whether the people realized 1t or not,
this meant still further Capitalization
of power in Washington.
The House oil Governors at its re-
cent meeting gave the first concrete
evidence of a widespread appreciation
of the extent to which the new condl-
ton of affairs has meant the substi-
tuition of federal for State control.
For example, there are comparatively
few railroads in the country which do
not represent the absorption OF lines
which were formerly wholly or almost
entirely within State boundaries, put
which are now interstate in their
commerce. AS a result the Interstate
Commerce Commission has come to
have almost entire jurisdiction OF the
railway system of the United States
as regards general traffic.
State public service bodies and rail-
road commissions still have Jurisdlc-
ton of various questions affecting
transportation lines passing through
the respective States, but there is ire.
quent conflict between the national
and the State Jurisdiction as a result
of this crossing of State lines by rail-
ways.
The control of interstate commerce
raises but one of various questions
that have developed in connection
with the increased demands of people
upon the federal government Tor aid'
relief or protection as the case may
he. We ask the federal government
! to improve our harbors and the gener-
al government proposes federal tax
upon incomes. We ask the depart
ment of agriculture to aid us in teach
ing us how to cultivate the soil, and
somebody in Washington proposes a
national inheritance tax. In one
breath we demand paternal govern
ment; in the next, we insist upon ouI
State and individual rights.
The specific invasion of State
rights of which the House OF Cover
Inors took cognizance at its recen
Injecting had reference to Interstate
commerce, and action took the form
of a protest to the Supreme Court o
1.-THE United States against a recent de
Icision by Judge Sanborn in the Mime
Isota rate cases. These are cases II
lequity, the original proceeding hayinl
been for Injunction to prevent sucl
damage to the property OF railroads a
would result from the enforcement o
the orders OF the Minnesota railroa'
commission. The authority of tn
Vermont Public Service Commissio
under certain conditions is also thu
indirectly involved and the sam
thing is true of other States.
IL was shown during the discussio
by the governors that the question 9
railroad rates, as presented 10 GU
courts, is under our dural system
government one of extreme difficult.
The federal government is charge
with the duty of regulating interstal
commerce, while commerce within IN
States is subject to the regulation
lawmakers representing the people
! the commonwealth.
II Is evident from this reference
the problems Of transportation as a
fected by national and State regul
! ton that this whole matter of central
lzatiou of government control Is IKE
Ito raise many far-reaching problem
lin the near future.
What we desire to emphasize
this time, however, is the fact th'
4 this clash of authority between fede
al and State control may serve
some cases to neutralize both. F'
! example, II II is established beyor
question that State can not regular
4 commerce within its borders, then II
/ question arises, how can such cas-
i be reached? Judge Sanborn decide
\ THAT the rate which was sought cou
i not be nut into effect without aifectlr
kl,ntaratate commerce. vet COngre
4 has no Jurisdiction over traihc VIII
B in the States except under certa
q lconditions involving interstate col
4 lmerce?
4 How then is the State to rea,
+ conditions that are clearly under u
jurisdiction of the State, and VIM
= vet affect interstate commerceY
4 The House of Governors undoubte
Il " did a foolish thing in protesting
Uthey did against the federal court a.
u vet there is plainly vast problem
which the attention of both courts a
people should be directed. The g
ernors performed distinct service
xlmaking conspicuous the need OF TAX
II ling this problem.
The House of Governors were l
wise In the means adopted. but IN
Il we're wise to emphasize the need
II eliminating the twilight zone VIM
Hlhas separated the jurisdiction oil I
n federal courts and that oil tne cou
II of the respective commonwealths' p
II tioularly with reference to the cont
of state and Interstate commerce