Arizona republican., 1912-04-02
SUPREME COURT GETS
Continued from Page One.)

NSoIlllHutu lIOiil | dSt OHt.J
 merce but indirectly by the action of the railroads themselves which would be only just and right"
 Testing the Minnesota decision by it's consequences, the governors de clared that it was plain that the in cvitable effect of the idea that busi- ness necessities, peculiar location of lines of transportation and of com mercial centers can be made an act of a state regulating its local rates d regulation of interstate rates and therefore invalid. would be the de struction of the state control over its own affairs.
 The right of state regulation CN- tends to every business conducted within its borders. though such bust ness may als" extend into interstat" commerce. Any act regulating or af- fectiug an enterprise having an in tcrStatc character necessarily affects the conditions under which it com petoS with like enterprises carried on in other states. This will apply to telephones, telegrdphs. natural gas ana oil companies and many other enterprises. And the passage of d law regulating the hours of labor within one state might make it diff ficut or impossible for it's corpora tions of citizens to compete success fully with those engaged in the same business In other states where no such regulation exists. The same condition would arise from the pas sage of wOrkman's compensation law. or law changing the liability of employers in one state. when oth- rr states have no such laws or diff lcrcut ones.
 "If the doctrine is tn be that tho laws or trJlc may mak" the per formaucc of lawful duty by state in the regulation of corporations ,lo- ing business there in regulation of interstate commerce. who is to pie scribe the test or rule for apply nS 1t? or shall We go to the iogIca! con cluSiOn that the laws of trade are higher than the constitution and must prevail without regard to the direct ness or extent of real or fdncSd in terfercuce with their full operation and effect?'
 In concluding the governors declar- ed that the rate cases involved no conflict between state and federal au- thority but controversy between the states and the railroads.
 No one contends that congress
 ..T f4,.. purely internal commerce of the states" it was asserted. The effect of the decision is not 10 take power from the states and leave it with con gross. but to take power from the states and leave the railroads free to charge whatever rates they please in their traffic within the states. for if the states cannot regulate these rates nobody can.
 The Fourteenth Amendment pro- tects the rights of carriers from in- vasion under the guise of regulation by either state or nation. IL is not always pasv to find 1he line which separates the domain of public au- thority from that of private right. But this is not so hard as il would be to trace the indirect effects of regulation by the states and by con- gress back and forth across the boun- Lary of their respective jurisdictions. The boundary itself is plainly mark ed We who have to do with admin istering the judicial power have in especial charge the covenant of the union and our plain duty is to see that this boundary is respected, leaV- ing further responsibility to the peo- pie of the country and the agencies they have created for the regulation of commerce. state anu interstate"