New-York tribune., 1912-04-01
STATE RATE CASES
BEFORE COURT TODAY
Supreme Tribunal Will Consider
Most important Question OF
Present Term.
WHOLE COUNTRY AFFECTED
Laws and Orders in Missouri,
Kentucky, West Virginia, Ar
kansas and Ohio Depend
on Courts Decision.
on Courts Decision.

Washington. March 3l.-Their bulk and
Importance rank the group of state rate
cases 10 be taken up for consideration 10"
morrow by the Supreme Court az the most
important cases To come before that tribu-
nal this term.
state rate laws and orders in Missouri.
Kentucky, West Virginia, Oregon, Mime
sofa Arkansas and Ohio will stand or fall
by the decision of the court State rate
orders in practically every state OF the
Union will he swept out % existence II the
court finds that the orders and laws now
I'm question burden interstate commerce.
Tho record In the Missouri cases alone
covers 10000 pages. This represents more
words than have been uttered In both the
House and Senate during the present ses-
sion Of Congress. The justices are each
supposed to digest this record and the
thousand pages OF briefs besides.
The Minnesota cases are almost as bulky
and have been referred 10 as the most com
prehensive. The validity Of practically all
maximum freight rates in the state, as we'll
as the two-cent passenger law. is involved.
Two big questions are before the court.
The first. likewise arising in cases from
the other six states, Is whether the reduc-
tion or state rates would require the rail-
roads 10 reduce similar interstate rates and
II such reduction Of state rates would be
burden on interstate commerce. The Mime
sofa federal court held that Il would he
such a burden The other question is
whether the rates conhscate the property
Of the railroads.
In Ia,t F, bn
affirmative the lower court adopted tho
reproduction cost new" OF the railroads a
showing their fair value The state holds
that was wrong basis. The state also OBJ
jects TO the use of the gross earnings as
the basis for dividing the value between
interstate and intra-state business and be-
tween passenger and freight business.
In the Missouri cases maximum freight
and tho two-cent passenger laws are IN
volved. The federal court I'm Missouri held
the rates ConhsCatory. but rot burden
on interstate commerce. The controversy
over valuation was avoided by an agree
mcnt To regard three times tho taxation
valuation as the fair value
The Kentucky case involves the constitu-
tionality OF the state railroad commission
act and the validity OF reduced rates on
disullcry supplies from Kentucky cities on
the Ohio River to inland cities The rail
roads lost on both points I'm the lower fed
eral courts
The West Virginia controversy relates
merely to the validity Of the two-cent pas
senger law. The Supreme Court of West
Virginia held Il did not burden interstate
commerce and was not Connscatory. Tn
successful attacks were made on the law
because Of its penalty clause and it's ap-
plicab!lty only to steam railroads. and not
TO electric railroads
The Oregon cases are almost Identical
with the Kentucky cases The constitution
ality OF the state railroad commission act
and the validity OF rates from Portland TO
other Oregon cities I'm tho eastern and
southern parts Of the state are involved
The lower f"d"ral court upheld tho law and
the rates.
In the Arkansas cases the maximum
freight law and the two-cent passenger law
were found by the federal district court
to be confscatory. The valuation was
placed at twice the taxation valuation.
In the Ohio cases the only question in
voived is the validity OF state rate fixed
by the Ohio Railroad Commission. on steam
coal from Eastern Ohio TO Lake Eric Pitts.
burgh vein operators objected 10 the rates
on the Wheeling & Lake Erie. The railroad
contends that the freight is interstate COM
merce transshpped at Cleveland and Huron.
Ohio. for lake cities in other states. The
railroad won below