The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1913-06-10

Ell transportation within Its WI border.
the right of a state to do aYythin
that would nullify or conflict wit
anything that might already have bee
Idone BY the interstate commerce com
mission, the right of a state court II
such matters as against a fedora
Il court and the right of the attorr1e.
general of a stateto be haled into fed
eral court on a charge of contempt TO
doing what, in his state and under hi
state laws. was his right, il not hi
duty.
AS o ais the cases got under wa.
in the lower courts 1t was seen by rail
road officials and the legal profession
bankers and investors. both in thu
United States and abroad, that tht
precedents that would arise from thu
final decision In the Minnesota rate
cases would be epoc1al in the trans
p~ortatfon industry.
Acts That Caused Litigation.
The acts that brought the big fight
were these:
Sept. 6, 1906, the Minnesota railroad
the warehouse commission ordered a
reduction of general merchandise
rates, within the state. of 20 to 25
per cent:
April 4, 1907, the legislature of Min~
nesota passed a bill reducing pas
SELLS CT IdLC0to 90 10 pei GSI1ls IilS w dS
commonly spoken of as the 80 cent
fare bili.''
April Is, 1907 the legislature of Min
nesota passed a bill reducing commod-
ity rates in n equal, In general
effect, to 1877 per cent.
May 3, 1907, the legislature of Min
nesota passed a bill reducing in bound
freight rates within the state.
Stockholders of the NorthernNP aci-
fic. Great Northern and Minneapolis
and St. Louis roads began suits
against the roads and against the
attorney general of Minnesota and the
state railroad and warehouse COM
mission to prevent them from putting
in the rates.. Meanwhile the rates had
all been put in. the carriers obeying
the orders of the state commission
1t was possible therefore. at the time
that the cases began to come up, to
know something from actual demon
stration of the effect of the reductions
upon the financial status of the
properties.
Charles E. Otis. master in chancery,
took testimony that was voluminous
Before him appeared some of the most
eminent railroad attorneys of the
United States. The Dwight M. Morgan
valuation of Minnesota railroads was
used as a basis for presentation of
contention, for and against the rate
reductions. Edward T. Young was
attorney general of Minnesota and
Judge William Lochren. now dead
was on the federal bench. From the
restraining orders and injunctions
asked for. which were granted in some
instances and disregarded. the extra
ordinary situation arose of the ittor-
ney general refusing to obey the man
date of a federal court and finding
himself in contempt.
In the months that followed there
We're many incidents of great public
interest. Judge Otis finally made his
recommendation to the federal court.
1t was distinctively favorable to the
view that the contending stockholders
had rights in the matter which were
paramount.
Decision of Judge Sanborn.
April s 1911. came the decision of
Judge Walter FL. Sanborn, of the fed
eral court, one of the most important
decisions In railroad matters ever
handed down by a federal judge. He
found, in substance. that:
The order reducing passenger rates
33 1-3 per cent al discriminatory.
The order reducing general COM
modify rates was discriminatory and in
violation of the constitution of the
United States.
The state a regulate rates only IN
so far as such regulation does not in
terfere with federal rate making
power. VS.
Thesonly basic rate making and reg
ulating power lies with congress.
All state laws that interfere with
the right of the federal rate making
power are void.
Railroad Officials Silent.
New York, June 10.-Railroad Off
Gals were reluctant to express an
opinion last night as to the effect of
the supreme courts decision in the
Minnesota rate case upon the broad
issues involved, on the plea that they
had not received sufficiently compre-
hensive advices to enable them to
grasp its full significance. Justice
Hughes had not completed reading the
decision until long after most railroad
men had left their offices. Those who
remained to await abstracts of the de-
cision said hat until they had oppor-
tunity to study the full text they could
make no comment.
The first flash from washington of
the decision reached the financial dis
trict more than an hour after the stock
market closed, so that it was without
immediate effect upon railroad stocks.
Bankers and stock brokers were hard
ly less interested than railroad men in
the courts ruling. Wall street had
formed its own conclusions as to the
probable action of the supreme court.
and it had been generally expected
that the decision would be against the
state of Minnesota.
This ruling has long been looked for
ward to as a matter of prime import
ance to the railroads and stock mar
ket, IN the theory that if the Sanborn
decision was upheld, the business of
regulating rates would be confined al
most entirely to the interstate COM
merce commission. The opinion gem
orally expressed was that such a deci-
sion would favor the railroads in that
it would largely nullify the powers OF
state railroad commissions and enable
the roads to look to the interstate
commerce commission as sole arbiter in
the adjustment of rates. Such a cen
~tralization of authority was regarded
desirable from the railroad and
financial point of view.
Y The Minnesota rate case has been a
factor of speculative Importance for
several years. On each decision day
of the supreme court during the last
two years trading in stocks centered
largely on the possible outcorne of the
case, and the business was restricted
until word came from Washington
that the decision would be further de-
layed. At moo dealings on the ex-
changes were almost suspended until
word came from Washington That the
decision If rendered yesterday would
notbe handed down until after the
close of the market.
Stock exchange brokers with for
.eign connections Were in active ccrl-
y,,17s,j ina III nY1M " Ia sf ynicrhf xxyi4J, +1,a;,.a.r