The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-04-01
STATE: RIGHTS :"
ARE: INVOLVED
!. IN REGULATION
Governors Protest Against
Usurpation Of Power by
Federal Government.
FILE BRIEF IS !. ststs s''y|yB!lE.
M.1HE MINNESOTA nn;. s'e's'


Question is Whether Railroad Rights
Supercede and Dominate State
Rghts-Trial Decision Took Away
Power Of states to Regulate Roads.
Washington, April 1.-The right Of
soverign state to regulate business.
Including railroads. within its borders
ernors Harmon of Ohio. Hadiey Of
Missouri, and Aldrich Of Nebraska
were permitted to file in the supreme
court today as friends of the court.
The plea Of the governors, all Of
whom have been active in railroad leg
islation and litigation was in the ap-
peal from United States Circuit Judge
Walter Sanborn's decision in the MIN
nesota railroad rate case involving the
right OF q state to regulate commerce
within its borders.
the three governors were empower
ed to act -as a committee on state
rights at the conference of governors
at'Spring Lake, n. ". last Septemb Der.
and were then authorized to seek to
intervene in the Minnesota rate case.
The, controversy in the courts ac-
ed by Governor Harmon and which
was Immediately filed with tho clerk
Of the court. involved no conflict be-
tween the, states and the federal au-
thority but the more extraordinary
question Of whether railroad rights
supercede: and dominate state rights.
The decision Of Judge Sanborn. the
AaAA 80
states to regulate railroads from the
states and left the railroads free to
charge whatever rates they please in
their traffic within the states. He
took the stand that II a state cannot
regulate the railroads within it's bor-
.ders then. there was no power tG reg
ulate them at all.
In conclusion the governors discuss
ed the broad questions of state and in
terstate commerce and said:
s'In this. as in all other cases where
Inconvenience arises from the division
OF powers between state and nation,
the only safe and sure reliance is in
the intelligence. resourcefulness. pa
thence and common interest of the
American people,. They will adjust
their business to conditions which re-
suit from the form Of government they
have ,thelnselves adopted and. require
their agents ii each branch Of 1t to
co-operate harmoniously and heartily.
Honly the short sighted, and they
are relatively few, will believe that
commerce among the states can gain
any real; lasting advantage at the
expense OF local. commerce. or that To-
cal. commerce; can thrive long, II at all.
from Interference with general CON-
naerce;; even though. by the Indirect
ness Of it's effect, such. interference
may escape the condemnation Of tho
law. = -
':The Fourteenth amendment pro-
tects the rights Of carriers from inva-
sion under the. guise of regulation by
either state, or nation. 1t is not al
ways easy to find the line which sep
arafes '{he domain. of public authority
frorr that OF private right. But this is
not oska rd as It would be to trace the
indifect effects Of regulation by the
etates.and by congress back and forth
across, the boundary of their respec-
tive jurisdictions. The boundary it.
self is plainly marked. We who have
TO- do with administering the judicial
c3venant OF the union and otlr plain
duty is to see that this boundary is re-
spected, leaving: further responsibility
to the people Of the country and tho
agencies' they, have created for the
regulation Of commerce, state and in
terstate." - -
The appealed case grew. out Of that
Of Shepard versus Simpson in which
the-Minnesota railroad rate regulation,
particularly the two cents mile pas
sengef rate law, were attacked as con-
fiscatory. 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 en-
Joined by the courts because Of the
actual or probably effect which 1t may
be shown to have. on Interstate COM
meFce through the operation on those
engaged therein of conditions of COM
petition, location of commercial CEN
tors and railroad lines and Of what
were called business necessities" :"
The local rates fixed by that state were
hold unlawful and enjoined because
thescourt found that because of them,
carriers would have to change existing
Interstate rates: The states regula-
ton: OF It's own internal commerce was
Tor this reason held to he, In effect, q
regulation of interstate rates.
The reasons given were that on ac-
count OF the location Of cities on the
Borders OF Minnesota and adjoining
states. tho railroads would be or had
been compelled to reduce their rates
between points in Minnesota and cities
In other states by reason Of the COM
petition Of the latter with cities in
Minnesota; thus Superior. Wis. on the
border Of Minnesota is practically the
same distance from st. Paul as Du-
luth. the two in fact, constituting one
commercial center. II the rates be-
tween st. Paul, and Duluth are re-
duced. Il was contended that q reduc-
ton Of the rate between st. Paul and
Superior was necessary and that this
constituted direct regulation Of in
teestste commerce. Several such ex-
amples were set forth in Judge SAN
botn's court.
The court held that the necessities
of competition compelled the railroad
% to reduce its rates. or suffer sub
stAntiaf loss In revenue from its inter-
state buSiness:" Conditions in the re-
spect mentioned are not materially
different In Minnesota. than what they
are 10 other states. generally. accord
Ing to the governors brief. Thus It is
pointed out Kansas City. Kan, and
Kansas City. NO.. are one commercial
center. as are Omaha, Neb.. and Coun-
cil Hq1Is. Ia.. East st. Louis. ILL.,. and
g.. Louis. Mo-. Cincinnati, o.. and Cow
tngt0p and Newport, KY. !
I'VE say that II the principle an.
notnced 10 to be upheld" said the
braef roferringf to that condition. It
VIII undoubtedly be made to apply by
showing q similar fact invirtually'