Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-06-10
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
svsTAINs POWERS OF.
COMMISSIONS.
CAN EsrAeLIsH INTERSTATE
RATES ON INTERSTATE LINES
Two Cent Fare and Other Rate Laws
Sustained in Minnesota Except as to
NJ 4 st. l--Ceu& Holds Low Rate
on That Railroad Would Be Confis-
eatery-Othsr States Affected.

Washington, June l0--The power OF
rates on interstate railroads, until such
time as congress shall choose 10 regu-
late these rates. was upheld late yes
terday by the supreme court Of the
United States in the Minnesota freight
and passenger rate cases.
At the same time the court laid down
far reaching principles governing the
valuation OF railroad property for rate
making purposes and, according TO
these, held that the state OF Minnesota
would confiscate the property of the
Minneapolis & ST. Louis Railroad
Company by its maximum freight and
cent passenger fare law. 1t enjoined
the state from enforcing these laws. (,
as TO this road, for the present. IN
the cases of the Northern Pacific and /!
Great Northern. however, the court I
held that these roads had failed 10
show that the rates we're 'unreason-
able or "corhscatory' and consequent I.
" reversed the United States district !
court of Minnesota. which had en- !
joined their enforcement as both con- |
dscatory and burden on interstate /
commerce.
Has Been Pending Long.
The decision. regarded as one OF the
most important ever announced by the
court had been under consideration for /
fourteen months. Railroad commissions /
from eight states and the governors Of !
ali the states filed briefs IN support OF /
the state in the cases, recognizing that |
The principles involved affected them |!
all. |
Rate cases from Missouri. Arkansas, /
Oregon, Kentucky and West Virginia |
were not decided today. but the points !
announced in the Minnesota cases are !
regarded as governing them generally. !!
These cases probably VIII be disposed !
of tomorrow when the court viii hold |
another session. as il viii also do on |
Monday June 16. the fnal day OF ad- |
tournuent for the term
Tho criticism OF the apportionr1l ent !
Of value between interstate and mira
state business on a gross revenue basis |
and the apportionment of expenses by |
regarding interstate business as TWO |
and half times as expensive as inter- |
state business was regarded here as !
favorable to the state OF Missouri in its
fight to uphold the valility OF the max
imum freight and 2-cens passenger law
enacted by it.
Other States to Win.
The states OF Oregon and Kentucky
were regarded as almost certain TO wiz
their rate cases. involving the validity
of state freight rates. because in each
instance practically the only objection
TO the laws was their reputed inter |
ference with interstate commerce
The decision was announced by Jus
tice Hughes. Justice Hughes consid- !
cred the attack on the state rates In
two parts, the one that they placed an
unlawful burden on interstate COM
merce and the other that they we're
so low as 20 confscate property OF the
railroads.
In considering the interstate COM
merce phase, he took it FOR granted
that the state had the power 70 regu-
late rates between points within the
state of Minnesota on railroads not
crossing state lines and SO far from
the boundaries and not to compete
with the cities of other states or other
wise affect interstate commerce.
He next reached the conclusion that
lntraState rates. whether on purely in
tras1ate railroads or interstate rail
roads. had not been regarded by the
courts being a direct regulation OF
interstate commerce.
States Have Authority.
The most intricate argument in this
phase OF the controversy was made by
the justice in considering whether state
rates on interstate carriers could have
such an indirect beating on interstate
commerce as to exclude the states
from imposing them. He reached the
conclusion that this was a we'll known
field in which the states could exercise
their authority until congress had seen
fit to regulate the field exclusively.
Finally he arrived at the conclusion
that congress in ali its rate making
Legislation had expressly provided tina.
the regulation should not extend TO
Transportation wholly within the state.
Among the laws which the states
may pass indirectly affecting interstate
commerce were mentioned state in
epection laws. state employers liability
laws and quarantine regulations. He
said that state rate making was to be
classified with these.
lit has never been doubted" said
he that the state could if it saw fit
build it's own highways. canals and
railroads. 1t would build railroads
traversing its border cities and COM
.mercial centers by new highways of
interior. course to be always availabl |
Upon reasonable terms
Draws = Parallel
Such provision for local traffic might
indeed alter relative advantages in
SIS competition and, by virtue of economic
forces. those engaged in interstate
tfsAe and transportation might find it
necessary to make readjustments ex-
fending from market to market thru
vide sphere Of influence but such
action OF the state would 20. for that
5sasoo be regarded a. creating direc.
restraint upon interstate commerce
~ - thus transcending the state
D0WGI
"1aDnaxlr, the authority Of the state
80 prescribe what shall be reasonable
EsAress Of common carriers for inna-
Otafc transportation unless If be lin
Nd BY the exertion OF the cnnxtitu-
Aa0na power OF congress, il state
Avi6A To say that the power ex-
4o9a but that IL may be exercised only