Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1913-06-13
Supreme / '|I|'||||Ie Court De
CidGs Rate Case.
DECISION IS UNANIMOUS
Federal Decree .Reverses That
Of Judge Sa,r,5orn in the
Circuit Tribunal.

Washington, June 10.-By a unani
nous vote the supreme court of the
United States upheld the right of the
Minnesota railway commission to fix
passenger and freight rates between
points lying within borders of the
state. The Minnesota rate case, which
has been before the court for eighteen
months and to which the country has
been looking with more interest than
to any case of recent years, was de.
cided in favor of the state and against
the railroads.
The decision of the United States
circuit court was reversed and the
supreme court held that the orders of
the railroad and warehouse commits
sion and the legislative acts of the
state of Minnesota prescribing maxi
mum rates for freight and maximum
of cents mile for passengers, be-
tween points within the state, are
valid. - e.
The decision means in brief that
railroads cannot evade state regula-
ton of interstate rates by the conten-
ton that rates fixed by state commits
sions or legislatures disturb the rela-
ton previously existing between inter-
state and intrastate rates, thus impos-
ing direct burden on interstate COM
merce and creating determinations as
against localities in other states.
So momentous and farreaching is
the effect of the decision that mem
bers of congress, other government Of
fcials and lawyers hesitate to discuss
it or it's probable effect until they
have had an opportunity to study the
full opinion of the court.
More than forty cases Involving gen.
orally the same principle were before
the court: AZ the interest in the out
come has become accumulated by the
long delay in handing down the opin-
ion the attention has been focused on
the Minnesota rate case, so called, as
involving the main issue.
The Minnesota case involved the
validity of an order of the railroad
and warehouse commission of Mime
sofa in establishing maximum freight
rates and 2-cent passenger rate be.
tween points in that state.
Stockholders Start Action.
Stockholders of certain interstate
railroads, including the Great North
ern and the Northern Pacific, sought
and obtained an Injunction from the
United States circuit court for the dis
trict of Minnesota against the reduc-
ton Of the rates. The opinion was
delivered by Judge Sanborn, admitted
to be one Of the ablest judges On the
federal bench, and attracted wide at
tention at the tine.
Most Of the lawyers in congress &C.
cepted the opinion at the time as
based on sound legal principles and it
has been generally believed that the
supreme court would affirm the dec;-
sion Of the lower court erijoining the
order From time to time reports
have gone out that the supreme court
was closely divided on the issue.
The railroad stockholders contend
ed that the rate established was con-
fscatory and made. some objections
to the method of ascertaining the va
uation of their property on which the
basis for estimating a just and rea-
sonable rate was reached.
But their main contention and the
one which has held the interest OF
the country was that the attempt OF
the state to fix a rate over an in
terstate road even between two points
within the state where the rate fell
below the interstate rate approved By
the interstate commerce commission
covering practically the same haul
was a burden upon interstate com
merce.
This contention the supreme court
promptly disposed of by holding that
in the absence of any action by con-
gress regulating such matters the
state has full authority to prescribe
the rate between points within the
state, regardless Of whether it is uni
form with the Interstate rate within
the same traffic zone.
In reaching this conclusion the
court reviewed the history of the
of original rates, showing
that originally the. state exercised
sole control and that it was not until
after the interstate commerce law
was passed that the federal govern
|ment sought to regulate the carriers.
Justice Hughes pointed out that up
to the time of the passage of the in
terstate commerce act it was gener-
ally conceded that the states retained
the right to control local rates and he
pointed out that there was nothing n
the language Of the interstate COM
merce act that denied the states this
control 81 5.St$#