The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1912-04-06
THREE GOVERNORS
,Conunued from Page Nine

able effect which it may be shown to
have on interstate commerce through
the operation on those engaged there
in of conditions of competition, loca.
ton of commerce al centers and rail
road lines and Of what were called
business necessities" The local
rates fixed by that state were held
unlawful and enloined because the
court found that, because of them,
carriers would have to change exist.
ing interstate rates The states reg.
ulation of its own internal commerce
was for this reason to be, in effect,
a regulation of interstate rates
The reasons given were that on &C.
count of the location of cities on the
borders of Minnesota and adjoining
states the railroads would be or had
been compelled to reduce their rates
between points in Minnesota and cit.
les in other states by reason of the
competition of the latter with cities
in Minnesota; thus Superior. Wis, on
the border of Minnesota, is practically
the same distance from ST. Paul rs
Duluth, the two in fact constituting
one commercial center If the rates
between St Paul and Duluth are re-
duced, it was contended that a, reduc-
ton of the rates between st. Paul
and Superior was necessary and that
this constituted a direct regulation Of
interstate commerce. Several such
examples were set forth in Judge
Sanborn's court.
The court held that the necessities
of competition compelled the railroad
so to reduce it's rates or suffer
substantial loss in revenue from is
interstate business" Conditions in
the respect mentioned are not mate
rally different in Minnesota than
what they are in other states, gen.
orally, according to the governors
brief. Thus, it is pointed out, Kan
sas City, Kan, and Kansas City, Mo-,
are one commercial center, as are
Omaha, Neb., and Council Bluffs, Ia.
East st. Louis, ILL.,, and ST. Louis,
MO, Cincinnati, O., and Covington,
and Newport, Ky.
Viciousness Of Decision.
1--WE say that if the principle an
nonced is to be upheld" said the
brief, referring to that condition, lit
will undoubtedly be made to apply by
showing a similar fact in virtually
every state. The vice of the decision
lies not in an incorrect statement of
conditions in Minnesota and adioin-
ing states, but in its plain disregard
of the provisions of the Federal con-
stitution which establish the rela-
ton between the nation and the
state The operation of these pro-
visions was not made to depend on
geography or convenience or compe-
tition. They cannot apply in one
state and not in another, according
found by the court, because they are
vital principles which constitute the
very structure of our dual form Of
government Commerce is important
but we do not live for trade alone
and cannot afford to let our institu-
tions be sacrificed for the sake of it.
The governor contends that the
basis of the Minnesota case was that
the regulation of interstate COM
merce follows from the regulation of
local commerce through IAN inexor-
able rule of trade" as held by Judge
Sanborn. In this connection, the
brief quoted by Mr.. Justice Brewers
opinion in the case of Ames VS..
Union Pacific: Neither can l I'M
derstand how the reduction of local
rates as a matter of law interfeTes
with interstate rates. 1t is true that
the companies may for their own con-
venience, to secure business or for
other reason, rearrange their inter
state rates to make them conform to
the local rates prescribed by the stat
Otes, but surely there is no legal COM
pulsion The statute of the state
does not work a change in interstate
rates any more than an act of Con-
gress prescribing interstate rates
would plead their own convenience or
the effect of competition between
themselves and other companies in
restraint of the otherwise undeniable
powers of the state"
Right of State Regulation.
1t is not held in the Minnesota
case that the law was passed or the
order of the railroad board made for
the purpose of regulating interstate
commerce, according to the brief but
only that they are invalid because Of
their effects on such commerce. 1t
is contended by the governors that
in the absence of such an intention