The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-06-10
Given Substantial Vic
tory by Supreme
Court Verdict.
ITS POWER TO FIX
RATES is UPHELD
Authority of State to Make Pas
senger Fare of Q Cents a Mile
and to Establish Maximum
Freight Charge on Intra-
state Traffic Fully
Recognized.

-
rates OF interstate railroads, until
such time ms Consres shall choose TO
regulate rates, wus upheld to-day by
the Supreme Court of the United
States in the Minnesota freight and
passenger rate cases.
At the same time, the court Inid
down far-reaching principles govern
ing the valuation of railroad property
for rate-makinG purposcs, and, accord
ing to these, held that the state of
Minnesota would confiscate the prop
erty of the Minneapolis md ST. Louis
Raiirond Company by it's maximum
freight and 2-cent passenger fnre law.
II enJoined the State from enforcing
these lnws, to this road. for the
preaent. In the cases of the Northern
PHci6c and Great Northern. however,
the court held TINT these roads had
fniied to show TINT the rates were
"unreasonable" conhscatory, and,
consequently, reverscd the United
States District Court for Minnesota,
which had enjoined their enforcement
AZ both confiscstory and burden on
Interstate commerce.
The decision. regarded as one OF the
most important ever announced by the
court. had been under consideration
for fourteen months. Railroad commits
sions from eight States and the Gov
ernors OF all the States filed briefs in
recognizing that the principles involved
affected them all.
Rate cases from Missouri Arkansas
Oregon, Kentucky and West Virginia
were not decided to-day. but the points
announced in the Minnesota cases are
regarde as governing them generally.
These cases probably viii be disposed
OF tomorrow. when the court will hold
another session. as II will also do on
Monday, June l6. the final day OF ad-
tournment for the term.
Favorable TO State.
The criticism of the aportionmeni
OF value between interstate and intra-
state business on gross revenue
basis. and the apportionment of ex-
penses by regarding intrastatc freight
business as two and half times as
expensive as interstate business, was
regarded here favorable 10 the State
Of Missouri. In It's fight to uphold the
validity OF the maximum freight and
2cent passenger law enacted BY il.
Similar confidence was inspired In ad-
vocates OF the Arkansas State rate
regulations, but all recognized that
the statement OF the court that each
case OF alleged conhscation must rest
it's own bottom, might mean the
setting aside OF the Missouri ana
Arkansas laws.
the States of oregon ard Kentucky
WtT. TeSaIueu certain TO
Win their rate cases involving the va
lidity OF State freight rates. because
in each instance, practically the only
objection to the laws was their reputed
interference with interstate commerce.
For a like reason many believed that
the West Virginia 2-cent passenger
law would be upheld.
The decision wa sannounced by JUS
tce Hughes, and consisted OF about
dc a,,,-
nous. with the possible exception OF
Justice Mckenna, who merely con
Cured" in the results.
Justice Hughes considered the at
tack upon the State rates in two
phases. one that they placed an un
lawful burden on interstate commerce.
and the other. that they We're so low
as TO confiscate the property OF the
railroads.
In considering the interstate com
mercc phases. he took it for granted
that the state had the power to reGu .
late rates between points within the
State of Minnesota on railroads not
crossing State lines, and SO far from
the bouEoaries as not to compete with
the cities Of other states, or otherwise
affect interstate commerce.
Not Direct Regulation.
He next reached the conclusion that
interstate rates. whether on purely in
trastate railroads or interstate rail
roads, had not been regarded by the
courts as being direct regulation OF
Interstate commerce.
The most intricate argument in this
phase of the controversy was made
by the justice in considering whether
State rate or interstate carriers eould
have such an indirect bearing on in
tcrstdte commerce as to exclude the
States from imposing them. lie
reached the conclusion that this was
n we'll known field, in which the
States could exercise their authority
until Congress had seen fit to regulate
the field exclusively. Finally, he ar
rived at the conclusion that Congress,
in all it's rate making legislation, has
expressly provided that the regula-
tior should rot extend to transporta-
tion wholly within state.
Justice Hughes reviewed decisions of
the court from its very foundation.
Our system of government is a
practival adjustment" said he "by
which tho national authority as con-
ferred by the Constitution. is main
tanned in it's full scope without unnec-
cssary loss of local efficiency Where
the subject is peculiarly one OF local
concern, and from it's uat ture belongs
TO the class with which the State ap-
propriately deals in making reasonable
provision for local needs, 1t cannot be
regarded as left to unrestrained will
OF individuals because Congress has
not acted, although it may have such
n relation to interstate commerce as
10 be within the, reach Of the Federal
power. In such case, Congress must
be the judge Of the necessity of action
Its paramount authority always en-
ables II to act at its discretion for the
complete and efficient government OF
(C0ntInued on Third PaRel