Elk City mining news. (Elk City, Idaho) 1903-1913, 1913-06-26
MOST VITAL COMMERCIAL CUES.
TIoNs INVOLVED IN RECENT
SUPREME COURT RULING.
STATES ALLOWED TO make R.R.RATFS
Among the As Cases Decided Were
Several From the West-Congress
May Take Hand Now-Ques-
ton Still Open.


the decision handed down by the SUI
preme court of the United States Mon
day involving the right of the various
states to provide regulations, includ-
ing the making of rates, for railway
systems traversing their territory, ir-
respective of the fact that the com
panies were engaged in interstate
commerce. The opinion was filed in
the Minnesota state rate case, in
which Justice Hughes held that the
rates, as applied to the Northern Pa
cific and Great Northern railways,
were valid, while ruling that those in
railroad were confscatory and, there
fore, unconstitutional.
The history of this class of litiga-
ton is thus reviewed in the press dis
patches: In general terms, this group
of cases called upon the court to de-
eide two questions. One was whether
the state in passing maximum freight
and 2-cent passenger laws had unduly
interfered with Interstate commerce.
The other was whether those laws
confiscated the property of the rail
roads by requiring them to transact
business at a loss.
The group consisted of As cases.
All arose out of legislation enacted by
state legislatures about 1907, or just
after the federal government had
10
as cases concerned directly the laws
in six states, Missouri, Minnesota,
Kentucky, Oregon, Arkansas and West
Virginia. Similar litigation arose in
Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska,
Oklahoma and South akota. In all, it
was said that 76 suits in federal
courts depended upon the decision in
the As cases before the supreme court.
The first of the As cases to reach
the supreme court were the Missouri
rate cases. In Missouri the 18 rail
roads crossing the state attacked in
separate suits, the validity of state
laws fixing the maximum rate on
freight and limiting passenger fares
to 2 cents a mile. Judge Mcpherson,
of the United States circuit court for
Western Missouri, held that the rates
were confscatory of the railroads
property and, therefore, unconstitu-
tional, but he declined to hold that
they interfered with interstate COM
state appealed to the supreme court,
bringing in all 36 Missouri cases.
Two cases growing out of 1.-THE Bur
lington suit" were presented to the
court in October, 1910, but they were
restored to the docket for argument
with the other Missouri cases on April
1, 1912. The state protested that
Judge Mcpherson should not have ap-
portioned expenses as between state
and interstate business on a revenue
basis, but rather on a car-mile. or ton
mile basis.
The Minnesota rate case arose out
of suits by stockholders of the North
ern Pacific, the Great Northern and
the Minneapolis e. st. Louis railroads
against the companies to enjoin them
lIOu OUGyln6 LuG lldlAluuIu llCl6ut
and 2-cent passenger laws as uncon-
stitutional, and against the state Of
ficials, to enjoin them from enforcing
the laws. Judge Sanborn, of the
United States circuit court, held the
laws unconstitutional, of a confisca-
tory nature, and that they burdened
interstate commerce. The three suits
were appealed to the supreme court
The contest over the Interstate com
merce feature of the controversy was
In the Oregon cases it was contend
ed that there was an interference with
interstate commerce. The Oregon
Railroad e Navigation company al
legged that the state railroad commits
sion, in reducing the state freight
rates from Portland to eastern oregon
cities, affected a reduction of inter.
state rates to those cities, because the
state rates were used as a basis for
the interstate rates. A similar claim
was made by the Southern Pacific
company as to rates along it's line
The United States circuit court for
Oregon upheld the rates. An attack
was also made upon the constitution
atty of the law creating the Oregon
railroad commission. That, too, was
upheld by the lower court.
The court, in concluding its sum
mary, after pointing out the general
authority of the national government
over Interstate commerce, concludes