New-York tribune., 1911-10-31
FEDERAL CONTROL OVER
RAILROADS BROADENED.
SupreIne Court Makes important
Decision in Safety Appll-
ance Case in Alabama.
AFFECTS INTERSTATE TRADE
Holds That Equipment Mnst
Comply with U. S. Law When
Roads Have Any Inter
state Business.


Washington. oct. s0-Complete ocntro' OF
all the railroads Of the country ny 'he
Interstate Commerce Commission ana VIII
nal elimination OF tho state COMMISSIONS
from such control ia foreshado"ed J" -
opinion handed down to-day by tne gu
prene Court of the United states '"'
court held that hereafter al Iocon1o''Ne9'
cars or other equipment used on any 'd''
road which is a highway Of interstate com
merce must comply with the federal sste'S
appliance act.
The court held that compliance WIN req
eraI law Is compulsory on All ra'lroa''
which are engaged IN the transportation oi
rersons or freight from one state TO an
otber Celebrating this, however. II helo
that the cars or equipment Of such roaos'
o,.o,, if engaged in such transportation
,,-,+bi, ,bo confines Of state, must he
considered as part and parcel OF the ROAD
and therefore. completely under inc Ju''S
dio,,on Of the federal commission.
Members Of the Interstate commerce
Commission. who have been emosrrasseu
~, MANY occasions by clashes or sutnorltS
y-ith etate commissions, are jupilant at the
ru,ins of the Supreme Court when was
,,-a,tr,ous referring TO the courts opinion
Cor,n,issioner Franklin x. Lane said y"
meant eventually, that there is to be nc
dua, control Of interstate carriers
Case Against the Southern
The determins ton Of this question was
laid down I'm an opinion read by Justice
Va, 0.vsntAr IL, n case begun by the gov
ernr,ent against the Southern Railway. The
roint az issue was whether the federal
act anrI;Ad in the case Of a shipment from
ono noint IN Alabama 70 another point I'm
the came state, tho shipment being IN an
improperly equipped car. The lower courts
held that there had been violation of the
law. and their Judgment was upheld by the
Supreme Court
Justice Van Devanter held that the law
ap,lied 10 all equipment on 2 highway of
interstate commerce. whether st the time
it was carrying interstate or intrastatf
commerce. He then held-snd was sns
tanned by the courts unanimous opinion
that the safety appliance act vas consttu
tional He said
SneskinS only Of railroads. which are
highways Of both interstate and intrastate
commerce. these things are of common
knowledge: Both classes Of traffic are AZ
times carried in the same car, and Wher
this IS not the case the cars in which they
are carried are frequently commlneleo "
the same train and IN the switching an1
other movements At terminals. cars ar
seldom set apart for exclusive use IN mVN'
ing either class of traffic. but generally
arc used interchangeable In moving BON
and the situation IS much the same WIZ
trairmen. switchmen and like employees
for they usually, if not necessarily, have tc
do with both classes OF trsftc.
Besides, the several trains OH the same
railroad are not Independent In Polnt o1
movement and safety. but are interdepeh
dent for, whatever brings delav or disaster
to one. or results in disabling one OF ~, ~,
progress and imperil the safety of otnel
trains And so the absence OF appropriate 70
safety appliances from any part OF any
train Is a menace, not only to that train
but 10 others.
The decision Of the court generally Is
regarded ss Of fsrresching stgnificanc'
and importance. It will enable the com
rniseion hereafter 10 enforce, practicallS
without question. tts orders based on ths
law Those who casually examined the
opinion were divided as 10 It's bearing or
tho litigation IS to whether state may
regulate freight and passenger rates or
intrastate traffic when such regulation in
terferes, or might interfere. with inter
state commerce.
The Supreme Court Is - consider th'
question next January. when 1t hears th'
so-ca1led Minnesota and Kentucky rate
cases II is the best Judgment Of thost
converssnt with the situation. however
that to-days decision has little. If anv
bearing on the rate cases.
MuoI, Friction Has Occurred.
More or less friction has arisen betreer
the Interstate Commerce Commission anC
state railroad commissions. which hat
made IL embarrassing 10 the federal bodl
in It's work Of interstate regulation. Oi
this point, 70 quote Commissioner Lane;
The Supreme Court could say. and 7 be
iieve II will say eventually. that an inter
state carrier cannot be controlled by stat
commission IN any way that woulG preie
intrastste over interstate traffic In othe
words the federal authority cannot perm,
state 10 build q wall around it's border
that would afford tho people within th4
wall greater advantage IN commerce thai
rs enjoyed by the people Of another stat
outsids~ the wall We cannot have sepa
rated, articulated arteries OF commerce
We must have = national system OF rail
rcJps uhOef uduOnbl coHtIol anu IeSuid
ton
I believe that fnsly the government WI
determine IS the government of Canada
for instance, determines, whether pro
posed line Of railroad shall be constructed
/ Tie building and operation of q new lin
OF railway nav put out Of business snothe
line that is equipped 10 supply all the need
OF the territory traversed. II IS folly Il
cor struct the new line. because its opera
ton means simply =. division Of the trafii
between two lines, where one Is amply ahl
10 carry II. and that, in turn, means ~
eventual boosting Of the rates SO that hotl
lines may live. This manifestlv Is dis
advantage 10 the shipper. 4 multiplicit,
of railways in the came territory make
against the interest ~ The shipper
Mr. Lane said he was gratihed that tn
Supreme Court had given the decision be
cause II made for better safer and more
economical operation Of the railway Sys
TENS of the country