Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1913-06-12

the rates were confscatory could not be
decided on proof of such general char
acter.
Applying these principles to the North
crn Pacific the justice held that neither
the value of the property employed nor
the share of expenses attributable to in
trastate business had beep proven salts
fnctorily to show that the railroads
property was conhscated. A similar con-
clusion was reached by applying the prin-
ciples to the Great Northern railroad.
Coming to the Minneapolis & st. Louis
he found that the net return in 1908 to
that road was less than three and one
half and that the errors of estimating
value and Of apport!onment were not suf-
ficient to change the result.
MOST MoMEFroUs PROBLEM.
The so-caled state ratio" cases have
presented TO tie Supreme Court one OF
the morentous problems OF the decade.
m general terms, this group of cases |
called upon the court to decide two
Questions. one WIS whether the states |
In passing maximum freight and two
cent passenger laws had unduly inter |
fered with interstate commerce. The
other was whether those laws coniscat- |
ed the property of the railroads By re-
|quiring them to transact business at n
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 passed the Hep
burn rate law. The 46 cases concerned d.
rectly the laws IN six states, Missouri,
Minnesota, Kentucky. Oregon, Arkansas
and West Virginia. similar litigation
arose in Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Ne
brasks, Oklahoma and South Dakota.
I'm all 1t was said that 70 suits In federal
courts depended upon the decision in
the 10 cases before the Supreme Court
The first of the 40 cases to reach the
| Supreme Court were the Missouri rate
cases. In Missouri the Is railroads cross
| Ing the State attacked, in separate suits,
| the validity of State laws fixing the max
i1num rate on freight and limiting pas
| senger fares to two cents a mile. Judge
! Mcpherson, of the United States circuit
| court for western Missouri. held that the
rates were conliscatoly Of the railroads
property and therefore unconstitutional,
| but he declined to hold that they inter
| rered with interstate commerce. Both
| the railroads and the State appealed to
| the Supreme Court, bringing in all 50
Missouri cases. Two cases growing out
| Of 'the Burlington suit were presented
TO the court in October 1910, but they
were restored to the docket for argu-
ment with the other Missouri cases in
| APRIL 1872. The State protested that
Judge Mcpherson should not have APP
portioned expenses, as between state and
Interstate business, on n revenue basis,
but rather on car-mile, or ton-mile
basis.
MINNESOTA RATE CASES
The Minnesota rate cases arose out of
suits by stockholders of the Northern
Pacific the Great Northern and the Min
, neapolis & St. Louis railroads against
the companies to enioin them from obey
ing the maximum freight and two-cent
passenger laws as unconstitutional, and
j., against the State officials to enjoin them
from enforcing the laws. Judge san
, born. of the United States circuit court
: for Minnesota, held the laws unconstitu-
+ tional, of a confscatory nature and that
they burdened interstate commerce. The
t three suits were appealed to the Supreme
2 Court. The contest over the Interstate
= commerce feature of the controversy was
r similar to that in the Missouri cases.
I In the Missouri cases, however, the
State and the railroads had agreed upon
the valuation of the railroads. upon which
the percentage of income from rates was
{ to be figured. No such agreement was
t reached in the Minnesota cases, and Bit
, ter contests arose over the holding OF
: Judge Sanborn that the fair valuation OF
3 railroad property was its cost of re
production new"
The Kentucky rate case arose over stat
= rates on grain from Ohio river points tC
e inland distillery cities Unlike the Mis-
rouri and Minnesota cases, it did not en-
; brace claim of conAscation Points
raised were that the rates laid an i'm
l proper burden upon interstate commerce
; and that the McChord act. authorizln:
= the state railroad commission to fix rea
l sonable rates was unconstitutional
a Judges Warrington Denson and Sanford
of the United States circuit for eastern
l Kentucky, upheld the McChord act AM
the rates In question.
In the Oregon cases It was claimed
o THAT there was an interference with in
3 terstate commerce. The Oregon Rairoa'
e & Navigation company claimed that tn
= State railroad commission in reducin
n the State freight rates from Portland t
e eastern Oregon cities affected a reduc
= ton of Interstate rates to those cities
+ because the State rates were used as
n basis for the Interstate rates. simila
3 claim was made by the Southern Pacif
e company, as to rates along its line. TIL
o United States circuit court for Orego
o upheld the rates. An attack was ais
e made upon the consttutionality of tn
t. law creating the Oregon railroad CON
IS mission. That, too, was upheld by tn
J. ! lower court.
y In the Arkansas cases, brought by tn
ST. Louis, Iron Mountain & Souther
- railway and by the St. Louis Southwes
Vi edG Railway, the United States circu
VI couT. for eastern Arkansas held that III
q maximum freight rate orders and III
two-cent passenger fare law were III
Oh constitutional because they were col
10 fiscatory.
So The West Virginia case arose out
ne q suit by the Chesapeake & Ohio Raj
y way company to test the validity OF II
u two-cent passenger law. The supren
e. court of West Virginia upheld the law.