Clearwater Republican. [volume] (Orofino, Idaho) 1912-1922, 1912-04-04
TETTTTTV Vf
GOVERNORS FILE
STATE PROTEST
JOINT SOLEMN ASSERTION IN
L.. $. SUPREME COURT OF
SOVEREIGNTY.
ABROGATION OF THEIR RATES
L.. s. Court Had Dctfecd That, Re
Regardless OF Fairness, Must
BE Subordinated.

nors OF the states as BODY today NJ
ed their solemn protest with the SUI
preme court of the United S'atcs
agains the proposition to strike DOWN
state railroad rates as Interfering
with Interstate commerce. They re-
specially called npon the bench'
having in Especial charge the Cove
nant of the Union to see that inc
boundaries of the states remain "
was the first time in the history OF
the nation that such a protest hao
been made.
The protest took the nature OF a
brief filed as friends OF the court
bv a committee of governors Jud-
son Harmon, OF Ohio; Herbert >.
S. Hadley, of Missouri, and Charles
H. Aldrich. of Nebraska. tbs COM
mittee was selected at a conference
of governors las. September. The
brief was submitted in connection
with the state rate cases" set for
oral argument today.
The appealed case grew out or that
of Shepard versus Simpson In which
the Minnesota railroad rae reguia-
tons, parcticularly the two cents "a
mile passenger rate lew, were at
tackled as conflscatory. Judge Walter
Sanborn who heard the case in the
federal court held that exercise of the
right of states to regulate railroad
rates may be enjoined by the courts
because of actual or probable effect
which it may be shown to have on
interstate commerce through the OPP
Grafton of those engaged tnere'h OF
conditions of competition. location OF
,t.a,.s, mi raj
and Of what were called business ne
cessities." The local rates fixed d.
mat state were held unlawful and
enjoined because the court found ina.
because of them carriers would nave
TO change existing interstate rates.
The states regulation of its own IN
ternal commerce wac for this reason
held to be, in effect, regulation OF
interstate rates.
The reasons given were that on ac-
coslnt 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 ana
cities in other states by reason OF
the composition of the latter with
cities In MlnncSoltt.
The brief was of peculiar interest
coming SO soon after the most recent
decision of the Interstate commerce
commission that railroads submitting
TO ,ow state rates must give similar
rates on Interstate business.
Because the federal circuit court
~ the Minnesota freight and passenS-
er rate cases held the rates Invalid
hot only as confiscGtory but by rea-
son of their effect on interstate conf
merce, that case was taken as the text
for the governors protest. 1t was
declared that what wa said went d.
rectly to the right of every state to
regulate stGte commerce., and was de-
signed particularly to be applicable
TO the Minnesota Missouri. Oregon,
Kentucky, Ohio. Arkansas and West
Virginia rate cases before the court.
1he governors had nothing to say
about the confiscatory nature of the
rates, but confined themselves to the
Interstate phase of the question.
The committee of governors set
forth the claim that because Min
nesota he'd required the railroads TO
reduce their rates from such cities
avs ST. Paul, Minn., to Du nth. Mimi.
or the state boundary, the interstate
business of the railroads from st.
I'aul to Superior. Wis. just across the
line from Duluth, had been affected.
Similar conditions. it was stated, We're
L, be found in Kansas City. Kan.
and Kansas City, No.. East st Louis.
H.. and st. Louis. Mo-: Omaha. Neb..
and Council Bluffs, Iowa. Cincinnati,
Ohio, and Covington and Newport,
Ky. The vice of the Minnesota de-
oision. 1t was urged. was not In an
incorrect statement of Minnesota ge-
cgraphy. but in the plain disregard
OF the provisions of tho federal con-
con stitution. which established the re-
alton of the nation and the states by
giving one control over interstate
matters and the other control over
state affairs 1t was admitted that
there might be some effect on inter-
state commerce when states regulate
state rates. but 1t was asserted time
and again in the brief that if rail-
road enjoys reasonable return under
--tate rates. it enjoys every right to
which it is entitled.
The test cannot be-" declare the
governors, whether the effect of fix
ing iilt tbtdi lflaN bI VIII Dt W
lead the railroads to lower their inter
state rates, but whether the local
rates are fair and reasonable. for If
they are so and the sum of them
is so much lower than the interstate
iates as to lead shippers to take tho
trouble and risk of rebiiline or re-
shipping NJ state lines, this is per-
fectly lawful condition the advantage
of which the public is entitled to en-
Joy. And as the cost and convenience
Of carriage in that way can be no less.
Tut as. 1t is wei known, would rather
lie greater, the advantage would re-
n,ain with the through rate even ii
il were reduced so as to equal the
sum of the local rates. The railroads
cannot invoke the commerce clause of
The federal constitution to shield
themselves against fair and reasona-
bic rates fixed by q state for its own
internal business The effect of these
on interstate rates Is not only inciden-
tai and indirect but aso legitimate
under the dual form of government
through which we enjoy happiness
and prosperity beyond compare
IF the local rates as reduced bv
Minnesota are still fair and the re-
ductiOn leads the railroads to lower