Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1913-06-17
RIghtS Of Missouri, Arkansas,
OREGON and West Virginia
10 Regulate Passenger and
FREIGHT Rates Sustained,
MINNESOTA DECISION
is AGAIN APPROVED
No Modifying Word Or Phrase
Uttered by Justice Hughes,
Who Prepared 0pinioni Con-
fiSCation Not Permitted,

nv noHmEo JOURNAL SPECIAL LEASED wiaEi
Washington, June i6.-Without
rarying a dot from the principles laid
down last week in the Minnesota rate
cases. the supreme court Of the Unit
ed states today upheld state railroad
rate legislation in Missouri. Arkan-
sas. oregon ana West Virginia. This
legislation included two-cent passen-
ger laws in Missouri Arkansas and
West virginia; maximum freight rate
laws in Missouri and Arkansas. and
freight rates out of Portland in the
oregon cases. Tho only exception to
the sweeping approval Of state stat
utcs was in the ease Of several weak
or roads IN Missouri.
The kentucky case was not decid-
cd II involves an attack upon state
rates from river points TO inland dis.
ullery cities, and involves in addi-
ton an attack on the constitutional
ity Of the form of the McChord act
enabling tho railroads to fix unrcas-
enable rates on intra-state business
A decision in this case may be forth
coming when the court meets again
In October
Justice Hughes announced the de-
cision in the rate cases today as he
did in the Minnesota cases a week
ago. Wherever the principle was
raised that the state laws interfered
with interstate commerce. the justice
referred 10 his Minnesota rate de-
osion. lie disappointed any who be-
lieved the court might, in some way
modify that decision.
We neeu not review the arguments
addressed to conditions of transpor-
tation in Missouri and the relation of
ntra-state to interstate rates" he
said. for while the ease has its spe-
clal facts by reason Of location Of
the state. and the use Of the Missis-
sippi and Missouri rivers as hasing
points in rate making, the control
ling question that has been presented
with reference to the authority of the
state to prescribe reasonable intra-
state rates throughout its territory
unless limited by the exercise on the
part Of congress of its constitutional
power over interstate commerce and
It's instruments. is not to be distin-
euishcd in any material respect from
that which was considered and de-
cidod in the Minnesota rate cases.
The Oregon and West Virginia cases
were decided in favor of the states
in n few words. the only point raised
by the railroads being that the laws
interfered with interstate commerce.
Justice Hughes went fully into an
examination of claims In the Missouri
and Arkansas cases that the property
Of the railroads devoted to intrastate
business would be confiscated.
As result. the state rates Will be-
come operative ON the the Chicago,
Burlington and quincy; the Atchison'
Topeka and Santa Fe; the Kansas
City Southern; the Missouri, Kansas
and Texas; the Chicago, Rock Island
and Pacific Gncluding the ST. Louis
Kansas City and Colorado) the st.
Louis and San Francisco; the st. Louis
Southwestern: the Missouri Pacific,
the st. Louis, Iron Mountain and
Southern; the Wabash; the Chicago,
Milwaukee and st. Paul, and the Chi
cago and Alton.
For the present the rates viii not
become operative on the st. Louis ana
HannihaE the Kansas City Clinton
ana Springfield; the Chicago Great
Western; the quincy, Omaha ana
Kansas City. and the St Joseph ana
Grand Island,
The court refused to accept the
valuation placed upon railroads III
Missouri ~ the states assesslns
board as q basis for fixing the "iar
value" for figuring whether the rates
confiscated property Justice Hughe9
took the case of the Burlington, ane
showed that by applying the assess
ment value multiplied three times
as was done by the federal court III
Missouri to the whole system, re-
suit would be obtained Sll5,OVO,VVV
in excess OF the capitalization of the
system. Besides he said, there Wd7
nothing to show upon what the as
SCISSORS fixed their valuation, nor was
j. demonstrated that the assessors
avoided the mistakes criticised in the
Minnesota rate decision.
Manifestly. a finding Of coniisca-
ton could not be based on such
valuation in the absence Of clear ana
convincing proof that the value ac-
ttally existed and that the different
items of property were estimated re-
spectvcly by correct methods and III
accordance with proper criteria OF
Value" said Justice Hughes. "This
proof was lacking. In the case Of the
other roads. although the special con-
sidcrations which have been men,
toned with respect to the burlington
prorerty may not be applicable. still
We are left in uncertainty as to the
eerrectness Of specific valuations
which have been made.
Apportionment of property values