The Washington times., 1913-06-10
THE MINNESOTA DECISION.

The Supreme Courts decision in the Minnesota
rate case points to the conclusion that whenever th
Federal authority is ready to take over the entir'
regulation of transportation raes-interstate ant
intrastate- will have authority to do so. That i
cheering aspect The courts m;1d judging from
the parts of Mr.. Justice Hughes opinion that have
been printed in the newspapers, runs, toward tn
conclusion that the Federal authority is wide enough
to regulate interstate and ntrastate rates alike wher
they are made by the same transportation agency
but, as Congress has neglected to assume responsi
bility for the important field of State transportation
it has left that OF the States and they privileged
to occupy so long as Congress does not enter and
crowd them out ......' -
This would seem to be judicial hint to the
national legislature that if it so DESIRES it is free
to unity and consolidate the whole business of trans
portation regulation. There is pretty unanimous
agreement among real students of the problem, thai
this is the very thing needed. Conflicts between
State and Federal authority constantly arise and mus
continue to arise. The decision of yesterday doe:
not end the prospect for them in future. -
Minnesota enacted a 2-cent-fare law, and, through
its legislature and its railway commission, directed
reduction of many rates freight business entirel,
within the State. The railroads went to court ane
enjoined the enforcement of these rates, on the
ground that they were con6scatory; and that they st
far Topped off railroad revenues from State bushes.
that they injured the capacity Of the roads efficient,
to serve interstate business; therefore that they
in effect effort by the State to regulate Interstate
commerce.
~ The court finds that the State has power to make
regulations of State rates; but is limited in don,
this, just as the Interstate Commerce Commission il
limited. Rates must not be con6scatory, Whethe
they are con6scatory is question of fact In thi
instance the court holds that the controverted rate
would be con6scatory to the property of the Mime
apolis and ST. Louis road, but would not be confsca
tory as to the Hill lines the rates will be enforce
against the Hill system and enjoined concerns
the Minneapolis and ST. Louis.
All this is very simple on the surface. But tht
courts discussion of practical measures for detemin
ing when a given rate is reasonable and when it il
confiscatory does not greatly ilumine that most diff
Hcult problem in regulation. 1t is not, of course, tn.
business of the court make rules for such compu
tations This is the business of legislature.
The Minnesota decision probably reverses the gen
eral expectations of the business world. There ap
pears to have been widespread impression that the
highest court would determine against the State Why
that belief should have obtained is not apparent Tht
Times some time ago anayzed other decisions, very
recently made which seemed to warrant only one CON
clusion: that the State of Minnesota would win Ir
winning it does not establish any assurance thai
other State regulation will be sustained be-
cause they resolve themselves at last into questions
of fact the State may make such laws, but they
must not 60 too far. The burden of proof that they
are confscatory is on the railroads.
long list of cases are now awaiting determine,
ton, which have been held back while the court
agreed with itself about the Minnesota case. This
decision seems certain to be fundamental for long
time to come and the coming decisions will doubtless
be based on its reasoning That is the court will find
that proper regulation may be undertaken by the
States and that it becomes question of fact whether
given regulations are con6scatory.
The great difficulty in all this is to distribute and
apportion earnings and expenses, derived from State
and interstate traffic, in an equitable manner. Nc
rule can be laid down that will be more than sugges
tive and rather arbitrary There ought to be no effort
at such differentiation. State lines mean nothing to
commerce. They ought not to complicate it. A single
authority should represent the whole public in regula
ton of this kind, and that authority should be Federal
EnterprSin0,