New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-06-11
The Decision in the Minnesota Case
Is Not a Victory for the State
Rights Theory.

A careful reading OF Justice Hughess OPINION III
the Minnesota railroad rate case VIII SNOW tn"'
early descriptions of ii as victory Tor the s'a'e
rights theory were unfounded. It does not upset
in favor of the states the status quo between them
and the nation as regulators Of railroad chaIeeS
II gives back no powers which the states nave ioS'
through the steady expansion OF federal cohu'
Of interstate commerce. As railroad transportation
has become and more federal concern s'"te
jurisdiction over 1t has been rapidly restrlc'e"
That process must continue and the decision i'll 'He
Minnesota case does not operate to stay It. WIN
the power now left in the states through the nc
auiescence of Congress the Supreme Court does not
interfere But It gives notice that 1t Will sustain
any further exercise of authority which Congress
may see ft 10 sanction for the purpose of freeing
national control OF interstate commerce from mar
assing regulations made by the state.
The most vital paragraphs of the decision are
these:
The authority Of Congress extends 70 every part
of interstate commerce and to every @
or agency by which Il is carried on; and the run
control bv Congress over the subjects committed
20 its regulation is not 10 be denied or lh Ma!ou
by the commingling OF interstate and inuastate
operations.
II the situation has become such by reason OF
the interblending Of the interstate ana nv 80,
operations OF interstate carriers that adequate resu
lation Of their interstate rates cannot Ne
without imposing requirements with respect 10 tHer
iintrastate rates which substantially aHect iiie 10
mer IL is for Congress 10 determine, "itnln eii
limits OF its constitutional authority over lhleIs'a'e
commerce and its instruments, the measure OF ''0
regulation II should apply
This is pretty complete assertion Of the govern
ment's paramount right to 60 into state and upset
local regulations nimical TO the conduct Of inter
state commerce on a just and fair basis. No con
cession Is made TO the new Western theory of state
rights as applied to railroad regulation. On the
contrary the scope OF the states authority IS I'm
tied 70 that very minor fraction OF intrastate com
merce which in no way affects the world outside
Justice Hughes's opinion stands on all fours with
the opinion given a few months ago In the LOUIS
iana-Texas case and is in line with the many pre-
edinc opinions which have recognized the fact that
virtually all commerce by railroad has become
affected with an interstate character and should fal
more and more completely under the jurisdiction OF
the federal power Congress has by no means ex-
bausted its energy in federazing the commerce OF
the nation and as for trade purposes state lines are
more and more blotted from the map further re-
adjustment must take place unfavorable to the
states and favorable to the nation
That is as It should be. We have outgrown the
period in which forty-eght different states could
reasonably he expected to regulate commerce with
beneficial results What both the railroads and the
country need is concentration OF control so that it
can be made uniform equitable and effective. Con
Rress should not hesitate to exercise the power Of
further unihcaton which Justice Hughes rightly
declares that II possesses.