The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-04-07
RAILROADS AND STATES RIGHTS.
uhconfned

RAILROADS AND STATES KItttIS.
Few who have not given the subject spe-
clal study iealize what important and what rad
ical changes the railroads have wrought in the
social and political affairs of this country. They
are responsible for the concentration of the peo-
PIE In the cities and, incidentally, for the many
questions growing ont of that condition; they
have made combination in trade-the trusts,
II you pease-not only possible but necessary
They have, in one sense, obliterated State lines
and forced the Federal government to regulate
and control interstate railroads. and that has
now brought on conflict of authority between
Federal and State which the Supreme Court OF
the United States must arbitrate
So serious is this conflict deemed that Gov
errors Judson Harmon, Of 1aio; II. S. Hadley.
OF Missouri, and Charles II. Alrich, OF Ne
braska have filed with the court solemn pro-
test against the proposition to strike down
State railroad rates as interfering with inter-
state commerce. They respectfully called upon
the bench, having in especial charge the Gov
enant CT the Union TO see that the boundaries
OF the State remain. This action is unprece-
denied 1t is the first time In the history of
N'~-NN"<'
the nation that such a protest has been made,
and, mark YOU this protest proceeds not from
the South, but from Ohio, Nebraska and Mis-
souri, The danger to the prerogative OF the
States must be great indeed when these three
executive officers feel called upon to cry aloud
to the Supreme Court and to invoke that body
as the custodans Of the Covenant of the
10 ri bf cofY no
True, these governors do not state the case
that way They declare in their brief that the
controversy involved no conflict between State
and Federal authority but the more extraor-
binary question whether railroad rights super
sede and dominate State rights. But when
sifted to the bottom the question is this; Can
the Interstate Commerce Commission supersede
and dominate State railroad commission and
change an interstate rate which the State Com
mission has made? According statement
sent out from Washington the validity of prac-
tically all paximum freight rates in the State,
as well as the 2-cent passenger law, is involved
in the decision of the cases now pending from
the States of Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia,
Oregon Minnesota, Kansas and Ohio. Two big
questions are before the court The first, like
wise arising in cases from the other six States,
is whether the reduction of State rates would
require the railroads to reduce similar inter-
state rates. and if such reduction of State rates
would be burden on interstate commerce. The
Minnesota Federal Court held that 1t would be
such burden. The other question is whether
the rates contscate the property of the rail
roads.
The question in which the public is inter
ested is not so much whether or not the reduc-
tiCn would be burden upon interstate com
nlerce, or the rate is confiscatory. as whether
OF not the Interstate Commission can amend
an interstate rate which State railroad COM
mission has made.
These are questions for the Interstate Com
merce Commission to decide But we are
quite clear on this point that the welfare of the
railroads and trades In which they are such
an important factor demands that plan be
adopted, and that right early which will insure
uniformity of regulation. 1t Is plain enough
that the railroads cannot serve two masters
when the masters themselves are not agreed.
but that one is issuing one set of orders and
the other another set in conflict. The railroads
should be made to serve the public, but they
must be informed definitely what service they
are expected to render