New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-03-25
STATE LINES IGNORED
IN RAILROAD RULING
Commerce Commission Holds
That Low Rates Must Apply TO
All Similar Traffic.
DECISION A SWEEPING ONE
Complaint of Louisiana Follow
ing Texas Body's Enforced
Reductions Basis of I'M
portant Finding.


portant Finding.
Washington. March 24.-The Inter
state Commerce Commission in an opin-
ion made public to-day established the
farreaching principle that a railroad
must so adjust its rates that justice VIII
be done between communities regardless
of the state lines. If railroad makes
low rate on traffic wholly within state,
even when forced to do so by state
commission, it must accord the same
rate to interstate traffic moving under
substantially similar conditions.
The principle was laid down by a vote
Of to 3 The minority held that the
powers of Congress were usurped by the
majority opinion and that the remedy
for such a situation should he applied
through additional legislation. The de-
cision was in the case Of the Railroad
Commission of Louisiana against the ST.
Louis & Southwestern Railway ana
other carriers operating between Louisi-
ana and Texas.
The case practically precipitatcd
conflict between federal and state
authority over the ccntrol of interstate
traffic The opinion Of the majority OF
the Interstate Commerce Commission
prepared and handed down by Commits
sioncr Lane. is a definite assertion OF
the supremacy Of national regulatory
10 pNCTpigg1
any state. 1t Is the first time this as
scrtion has been made distinctly by the
commission. In making 1t the chair
man. Charles \. Prouty. and Commits
sioners Clark and Meyer concurred with
Commissioner Lane. Commissioners
Clements, Harlan and McChord dissented.
Discrimination Favored State.
The proceeding brought by The Louisi-
ana commission placed In issue the right
of interstate officers to discriminate in
favor Of state traffic and against inter
state traffic The opinion says;
The gravamcn of the complaint Is that
the carriers defendant make rates out OF
Dallas and other Texas points INTO Eastern
Texas which are much lower than those
which they extend into Texas from Shrevc-
port La. 4 rate of 50 cents carries nrst
class traffic to the eastward from DaIlas'
distance Of 100 miles while the same rate
Of 90 cents will carry the same class OF
traffic only 50 miles into Texas from
Shreveport.
The low rate within the state OF Texas
was forced on the railroads by the Texas
Railroad Commission in furtherance Of a
policy to protect and promote the job
bling interests Of Texas. The Louisiana
commission and that states CONNER
cial interests declared that Louisiana
was being Disseminated against because
of the exaction OF the higher rates from
Shreveport westward and demanded
an adjustment Of the rates. The con-
tcntions of Louisiana were sustained by
the commission absolutely. The ma
jority held
That tho present class rates from Shrcyo.
port TO Texas points were unreasonable
and prescribed lower rates which must 10
put into effect by May J.
That the present relation Of rates, east
bound and wcgtbOund, from Shreveport
gives an undue preference to Dallas and
Houston and other Texas cities, and the
carriers are ordered to establish the same
yates on westbound AS on eastbOInd trafiic
That il a state, by the exercise Of It's
lawful power, establishes rates which the
interstate carrier makes effective upon
state traffic that carrier does so with the
full knowledge that the federal govern
mcnt requires II Ia apply such rates under
like conditions upon interstate traffic. To
Say that an interstate carrier may discrim'
mate against Interstate commerce because
Of the order of state commission would
be TO admit that n state may limit and
prescribe the fOw OF commerce between the
states.
The conclusion Of the ma jOrity opinion
is vigorous assertion OF the paramount
authority of the national government
over all interstate traffic. II says:
An interstate carrier must respect the
federal law, and II IL is also subjected 10
state law il must respect that in so far as
II can without doing violence 10 its Obliga-
tions under the national authority. Before
us are carriers which undeniably diSCriml-
nate directly against interstate traffic. To
this charge they plead that all they have
done was to obey the orders OF a state
commission, as against which they were
helpless, They appealed 10 no court for re-
lief, nor TO this commission.
When tho State Of Louisiana after years
OF endurance makes complaint to this body
these carriers make no showing Of the rca-
sOnabeness Of their rates other than that
heretofore dealt with-a traffic adjustment
equaliZing gateways-and even In this de-
fence all the carriers do not join.
The class rates OF the Texas commission
Within the distances here involved are not
too low. This the carriers themselves do
not urge. Yet they have maintained higher
rates from Shreveport, the interstate point.
While the Texas commission has evidenced
a policy OF home protection for its own
state cities there is every evidence that the
carriers moving into and within Texas ac-
Cepted this policy as their own, claiming
that not to have adopted II would have led
4 oil m ~ nj Ia 81 "a a a
ties.
Such conditions may not continue under
this act The interstate carrier which
adopts policy, even under state direction,
that makes against the interstate move
ment Of commerce must do so with its eyes
open and fully conscious Of It's responsible
ties to the federal law which guards com
merce among the states against discrml-
nation.
Commissioner McChord dissents radl-
cally from the majority. intimatlng di
rectly that, i'm view of the approaching
determination of the Minnesota, Ken
lucky and other state rate cases by the
United States Supreme Court, the com
mission ought not TO assert such prin-
cples as are embodied in the present
case. He declares that the conclusions
reached are both erroneous and UNI
necessary" He says after an elaborate
discussion of the case:
my position is that this commission
should confine itself within the four
corners Of the law of its creation, usurp-
ing neither the legislative function OF the
Congress nor the judicial power of the
courts"