Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-09-17
ALDRICH ON THE
SANBORN DECISION
CONTINUED from Page rour.l


state traffic or imposing a substantial
burden thereon when it would affect but
a small volume Of Interstate traffic as
compared with the general Interstate bust
ness Of the company, is not sound law
The power OF a state 20 regulate the
local rates Of railroads is plenary and
subject only 70 the limitation that such
regulation must not be coufiscatory OF the
railroads property and must not directly
regulate Interstate commerce. In the pas
sage OF such laws the rule has always been
recognized by our supreme court that they
are bound TO affect more or less Interstate
commerce.
Il here make the assertion that in this
Minnesota case, neither the opinion OF
Judge SanbOrn nor the evidence OF the
case shows that this Minnesota freight
rate and passenger reduction decreased
the general volume OF business OF inter-
state traffic nor did it compel the com
panies TO do business at non-compensatory
rates.
THE utmost that can be claimed against
this Minnesota statute was that it met
dentally put the common carriers in in
terstate traffic to the Inconvenience OF
making some new schedules and putting
in other and different rates. But the com
mon carriers are used to this sort OF busi-
ness, for the Western Freight Traffic
association, as Is well known, as well as
other freight associations. get out new
schedules every six months.
"The fact that a state regulation causes
Inconvenience is not proper 10 be consid-
cred h determining whether a state law
and state government should be nullified
and the statute brought to naught. The
real basic principle upon which a law
should be nullifed. among other things,
HHnHmnH -
is non-remunerative and effectually dis
arranges interstate traffic to the extent
that the general volume OF business is az
fected and that general loss and unjust
discrimination results generally. When
these results occur, il Is plain to be seen,
then. that that particular law should be
nullfled.
But here is a court opinion that goes
out OF its way to bring in isolated in
stances, and totally ignores tthe weight Of
authority wherein it has been held in some
leading cases by supreme court that
state railway commission may compel in
terstate trains to stop at certain stations
within a state or may change its time
schedules to make connection with other
trains and many other things OF like
nature These seem TO have been convent
emily forgotten by the learned judge in the
Minnesota case.
If you ask me why is It that congress
does not pass a law defining accurately
what is Interference undue burden OF
traffic on the part OF a state, my answer
is that it is impossible to fix any hard
and fast rule that will do justice 70 any
and all cases. or any considerable num-
Der OF cases so far as that is concerned,
that may arise in trying to solve this COM
pIicated problem. It is my contention that
fFu NurTr "a ~
facts and circumstances. There are certain
well defined principles OF law alone, when
properly applied, that can properly solve
these questions.
ct is the duty of courts not to legislate,
but simply to apply in a Just and common
sense way, without fear or favor, these
legal principles to each case as II comes
up with its own peculiar facts and its own
peculiar circumstances. When courts will
uniformly apply legal principles in the
same way TO the same or similar cases,
then we can eventually have fixed rule
for these particular matters But when
courts are continually making different ap-
pIications OF the same principles to the
same or similar circumstances, then We
have a chaotic. unsettled and unsatisfac-
tory condition.
In other words, when, by long course
OF square and fair, sensible and Just ap-
pllcations Of these legal principles, so that
there will be some certainty as to what
decision will be- then this chaotic condition
will cease and the feeling of distrust that
the public in many states now have for
inferior federal courts will vanish
Probably a whole lot OF this trouble
comes from the fact that in many instances
these inferior courts are composed Of law
yers who owe their position, not so much
20 legal attainment and profound learning
as they do TO political service rendered.
That explains why in so many instances
these court opinions sound very like the
argument of a lawyer who hold the brief
OF a railroad company, rather than an
important, influential and, powerful posi-
ton at the hands Of the judicial system Of
our country.
Il say that IL Is the overwhelming weight
OF authority-more. deem II the law with
out any exception whatever, that the state
OF Minnesota in this rate regulation, has
the right to promulgate schedules and rea-
sonable rates and charges. which
the common carriers OF that state
must obey. and in so doing this
regulation may, Incidentally, affect in
terstate traffic. But it is the overwhelm-
ing weight OF authority that this does not
nullify the law.
anu IN concluding my remarks upon
this SanbOFn decision, I say first, that Il
Is unjust and unsound.
Second, that IL has failed to look into
the operations OF the statute complained o.
in its broadcast sense.
Third, il does not view the entire scope
Of this law I'm determining whether IL vio-
lates the interstate commerce clause.
Fourth. IL ignores and does not consider
the full power Of the state to make such
regulation and the fairness Of that law
Fifth, its conclusions are based on isa-
lated instances and extreme cases, which is
contrary TO the well settled law OF this
country
Sixth, IL does not take into considera-
ton nor in any way attempt 70 show what
is the volume of traffic affected in particu-
lar Instances as compared to the general
volume OF traffic OF the companies.
And last. and possibly most important
OF all, IL does not show nor take into con-
sideration whether the reimbursement OF in
terstate rates caused by the reduction OF
local rates are non-aompensatury.
Il know not what other states may DO;