The Ward County independent. [volume] (Minot, Ward County, N.D.) 1902-1965, 1912-04-11
GOVERNORS ATTACK
sANB0RN's RULING
UPHOLD RIGHT OF STATE 70
REGULATE BUSINESS WITH.
IN ITS BORDERS.
HARMON PREPARES BRIEF
Rate Case-Oeciare That Provi.
sions Of Constitution Are Ole.
regarded by Decision.

Washington, April 1.-THE right Of
q sovereign tsate to regulate business
including railroads. within its borders
was the burden of a brief which Gov
ernors Harmon of Ohio. Hadley 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
legislation and litigation. was in tha
appeal from United States Circuit
Judge Walter Sanborn's decision in
the Minnesota railroad rate case in
volving the right of state 10 regulate
commerce within its borders.
No State and Fedora, Dispute.
The controversy in the courts, &C.
cording to the brief which was draft.
ed by Governor Harmon and which
was Immediately filed with the 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
supersede and dominate state rights
The decision of Judge Sanborn, the
brief contends. took the power of
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 If a state cannot
regulate the railroads within its Dor,
ders than there was no power to regu,
late them at all
The appealed case grew out of that
Of Shepard versus Simpson. in which
the Minnesota railroad rate regula.
lions, particularly the 2 cents "A mile
passenger rate law. were attacked AS
'confiscatory Judge Walter Sanborn,
who heard the case In the federal
court. held that exercise Of the right
OF states to regulate railroad rates
may he enioined by The courts be-
cause OF the actual or probable effect
which 1t may be shown to have on in
terstate commerce through the opera
ton on those engaged therein Of COL
ditions of competition. location OF
commercial centers and railroad lines
and OF what were called business ne
eessities." The local rates fxed by
that state were held unlawful and on.
Joined because the court found that
because Of them, carriers would have
to change existing interstate rates.
The states regulation of its own in
ternal commerce was for this reason
N 40 In
Interstate rates.
Examples Of. Competition.
The reasons given were that on &C.
count 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
hetween points in Minnesota and cit
les IN other states by reason Of the
competition of the latter with cities in
Minnesota; thus Superior. Wis, on the
border of Minnesota, 10 practically the
same distance from St. Paul a. Du-
luth. the two in fact, constituting one
commercial center. II the rates BE-
tween st. Paul and Duluth are re-
OuSCus IL WE CVulouUO0 LUAI d reOuC
ton of the rate between st. Paul and
Superior was necessary and that this
constituted a direct regulation of in
terstate commerce. Several such ex.
amples were set forth in Judge San.
born's court.
The court held that the necessities
Of competition compelled the railroad
so to reduce its rate or suffer 4 sub
stantial loss In revenue from its in.
terstate business" Conditions in the
respect mentioned are not materially
different in Minnesota, than what they
are In other states. generally, accord
Ing to the governors brief. Thus 1t
is pointed out Kansas City. Kan, and
Kansas City, Mo-. arc one commercial
center, as are Omaha, Neb.. and Coun-
Gil Bluffs, Iowa. East st. Louis. ILL.,,
and st. Louis. Mo-, Cincinnati and
Oovfngton and Newport. Ky.
Plaza ElAet>d 0e>eiA>aA