New-York tribune., 1911-02-21
RATE LAWS INTERPRETED
BY SUPREME COURT
Railroads Cannot Accept Any
thing but Money tor
Transportation.
LIABILITY STATUTE UPHELD
Two Rulings on Powers OF Inter
state Commerce Commission
State May Regulate Size
of Train Crews.

Washington, Feb. % Not for years have
SO many far reaching principles relating
20 interstate commerce been approved by
the Supreme Court Of the United States as
were established in its decisions to-day as
the unquestioned law OF the land. Decisions
on a number Of other difficult questions
we're announced.
Among the interstate commerce questions
decided we're these:
That the passenger has no right 10 buy
tickets with services, advertising, releases
or property, nor can the railroad company
buy services. advertising. releases or prop
erty with transportation.
That a state law regulating the size Of
crews on trains within the state is not an
obstruction 10 interstate commerce. but Is
enacted rather in aid Of interstate COM
rnerce, and may be passed by state for
the public safety.
That the Supreme Court will review the
validity Of an order Of the Interstate Com
merce Commission even though the two
year limitation or the life OF the order has
expired.
That a railway system may not escape
regulation as an instrument Of interstate
commerce because one OF its constituent
parts is wharfage company and its domi-
mating power over the wharfage company
rests in the fact that IT is a holding COM
rany.
That the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion does not possess the power 10 reduce
rate as unjust and unreasonable'' mere
ly because the rate is nequitable under
Eome circumstances, as in cases where
railroads induce shippers 10 enter field
by offering rates so low as TO be unre-
nunerative. and later increase the rates.
The court also held constitutional state
statute providing that no contract Of re-
lief, benefit or insurance should be bar
20 the right Of a railroad employe engaged
IN the operation Of q railroad to sue the
employer for damages resulting from in
'uries received IN the course ot his en-
ployment
The famous boycott case brought in the
local courts by the Bucks Stove and Range
Company. OF st. Louis. against the Amcri-
can Federation Of Labor was formally dis
missed
The oflcials Of the American Naval
stores Company obtained a review OF their
conviction for alleged violations OF the
Sherman antitrust Law.
Cannot Give Advertising for Tickets
Route and the Frank a. Munsey Company
rave rise 10 the principal advertising case
I'y the terms of the contract the Monon
1,oU,e was TO get one page of advertising
So 'Nunsey's Magazine" in exchange for
"orth Of transportation The govern
charged that this was in viola.
-t-r ~ the Hepburn rate law. and asked
-, Irt tc enioin the railroad from issu-
transportation. II contended that il
1vertising could be accepted, railroads
}uld also accept coal. or iron, or wood, or
- or anything else in payment for trans
ortation. thus opening the door to whole
lie determinations among shippers. The
abroad argued that so long as the sub
itUte for money in the payment for trans
yortaCon equivalent in value 20 money
1ero ict different" compensation
under the law.
The United states Circuit Cour. Tor the
Northern District Of Illinois granted the
relief asked by the government. The Su-
prcme Court affirmed this decision.
The court also decided that interstate
railroads cannot issue passes for inter |
state transportation. even thoIgn they
had contracts TO do so before the passage
Of the Hepburn law. This question came
Cp in a suit 20 compel the Louisville X
~ NdhiLNiilt tNdBiNdI IpiiipdI. 10 ISSUE IttS7'o
10 Erasmus L. Motley and his wife The
Mottleys were injured in railroad acc- /
dent years ago. In settlement of the claim
arising out of the accident the railroad
agreed to issue 20 them free passes over
its line as long as they lived. That was in
IHi After the Hepburn rate law was
passed the railroad declined 10 issue the
passes on the ground that the law forbade
81 Suit 10 require the railroad 10 do so
was finally brought 10 the supreme Court,
which to-day said II substance that no
contract could defeat the proper govern
mental regulation of interstate commerce. !
and contracts must be considered as made
with that principle in mind. and the rail-
road did right in not issuing the passes.
Employers Liable for Injuries.
The consututionaii,y Of The law Of Iowa
enabling an employe OF the operating de-
JsTtinent of d railroad 90 sue the road Tor
injuries. notwithstanding the fact that he
Rad received injury benefits from relief
department supported partially by the rail |
roac was upheld.
The corstitutionaHty Of the law was at
tscbed when Charles l. Mcclure sued the
Chicago Burlington * Quincy Railroad for
$4,000 damages for injuries. Mcclure had 4
received Se5- nom the burlington IeNei
department, an association maintained by
the railroad and it's employees. It was al |
legged that one Of tho regulations Of the re-
lief department was th1t employees must
elect between accepting relief from It and
pressing q claim against the company The
COMPANY first contended that the recovery !
from the relief fund was a bar 20 the ac-
tion in court. and when that was decided
against il an attack was made on the con /
stitutionality II the code provision The
Supreme Court Of Iowa upheld the consu- /
,utio1slity Of the law The Supreme Court
To-day affirmed the decision OF the state
court In an opinion announced by Justice |
Hughes
TIE court reviewed and upheld an order |
of the interstate Commerce Commission in
1908 directing the Southern Pacific Ter !
pnipal Company. the Southern Pacific Com /
pany and the Galveston. Harrisburg & san |
Antonio Railway Company 10 cease giving 4
T. II. YOUNG undue preference and ad- I
vantages" in the handling OF cottonseed
products over The wharves OF the Terminal
Galveston apnCore1 hg