The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-11-12
THE GOVERNORS PROTEST.

II will he remembered that a meet
ing Of Governors held during the
month OF October in New Jersey made
vehement protest against the decision
of Judge Sanborn in the famous MIN
ncSota rate ease Judge Sanborn de-
ciGcd that the State railroad commls-
sion of Minnesota was not justified III
making rates within that State which
intcrfered with the schedules as adopt
ed under the. rules and regulations OF
the Interstate Commerce Commission.
The Governors appointed committee
TO appear in their behalf In connection
with the attorneys for the State of
Minnesota in the appeal to the U. 5.
Supreme Court against Judge San
born's decision, The Governors held
that tine jurisdiction of the State as TO
commerce within it's own borders was
exclusive and could not be intcrfcrcd
with by the Interstate Commerce Com
mission s rulings.
IT seemed TO be clear case all the
time that Judge Sanborn was abso-
lutcly right, and that the Governors
had no case. This view is now sup
ported by 4 ruling Of the L, S. Supreme
Court in Il case appealed from the
South which involves the same prlnci-
pie precisely as that in the Minnesota
case. although the application of the
principle is in quite another direction.
The case appealed from the South in
volved the power of the Interstate
Commerce Commission TO enforce the
use of safety appliances upon all cars
used by railrosds when such cars are.
or by means of their connection may
he liable to- engage, in Interstate com
mercc, any State law or regulation TO
the contrary notwithstanding. The re.
SIstance TO the law which the Inter.
state Commerce Commission WAS nm.
dertaking to enforce there was from
roads which hold that IN purely State
transportation the Interstate Com
merce Commission has no jurisdiction.
But the l. >. Supreme Court holds di-
rcctIy to the contrary Justice Van
Devanter wrote the opinion. and il was
unanimously coDcurred in by nil The
members of the court The parapraphs
affecting the general principle are as
follows:
Speaking only of railroads which are
highways OF both Interstate and intra-
state commerce. these things arc OF COM
mon knowledge. Both cIasscs OF traffic
are al times carried In the same car
ana when this IS not the case. the cars
in which they are carried arc Frequently
fr1i Ia, 4 10
switching or other movements at ter
miuals
Cars are seldom set apart for exclusive
use in moving either class Of traffic but
generally are used interchangeable IN
moving both: and the situation is much
tne same with tralnmen. switchmen and
necessarily. have 10 do with both classes
Of traffic. Besides the several trains
on the same railroad arc not indcncudout
in point OF movement and Ssftcy. but arc
ter-dcpcndcnt, Tor whatever brings de-
lay ana disaster To one. or results in dis
abling one Of its operatives. is calculated
to impede the progress or imperi the
safety Of other trains, And so The al
sence or appropriate safety appliances
from any part Of any train Is a menace
not only TO that train, but to others
1t is clear from this that the power
Of the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion TO enforce the law requiring safe
~ appliances Is fully affirmed. even on
ears that may not engage in interstate
transportation at all II is sufficient in
the view of the court that they may
or might be used in such interstate
traffic and that both classes Of trans
portatlon arc commingled. Undoubt.
edly the beneficial nature of such ap-
pliances appealed powerfully to tho
court; but still the principle involved !
is precisely the same as in the Mime
sofa case. the cases are identical III !
essentials. The Interstate Commerce /
Commission acting in pursuance of /
Congressional statute. iuterfcred in the |
case from the South to compel the use
of the safety appliances designated in |
the law. by roads in within State traffic; |
and the court sustains that commission |
In Minnesota the Interstate Commerce
[ 'pnl I'M octin,,