Milford chronicle., 1913-06-13
Long Awaited Decree Handed
aOHl by Supreme Court
RULING MOST IMPORTANT
The Minneapolis & St. Louis Rates Are
Confiscatory, While Those of North.
,ern Pacific and Great Northern Are
Valid.

The state of Minnesota won a sub
-Gtantial victory in the supreme cour
eof the United States when, in the Min
gaesOta state rate case, Justice Hughes
fcor the court, held that the rates Of
che Minneapolis & St. Louis railroad
were confscstory and unconstitutional
;but that the rates of the Northern Pa.
s-ific and Great Northern were valid.
The decision was a victory for the
state on 1.-THE interstate commerce
Iphases of the controversy affecting
the Minneapolis & st. Louis.
Justice Hughes said, in part:
1.-THE constitution gives congress
an authority at all times adequate to
secure the freedom of interstate com
lmercial intercourse from state con.
5trol and to provide effective regulation
>0f that Intercourse as the national in
fterest may demand.
"2-The commerce that is confine
within one state and does not affect
r1hat Of states. is reserved to the state
The Minnesota rate cases arc
among the most important with which
the United States supreme court has
had to deal for many years. Theii
tendencies are far-reaching and have
had a visible effect on the stock mar
lket during the past few months
Three cases are pending under the
rtitle Of the Minnesota rate cases. An
effort was made to enjoin the state o:
Minnesota from enforcing certain laws
passed by the legislature of that state,
faxing the rates for freight and passen.
gers for strictly interstate traffic
'T'hese rates provided for a reduction
Nm the maximum passenger fare pei
smile and reduced the freight
schedules materially on all traffic
originating and terminating within
tthe boundaries Of the state of Mime
@sotS. The proceedings were first
brought by the railroads in the United
estates circuit court of Minnesota.
Before the lower court the railroads
won their cases throughout and the
stale appealed. Of the issues involved s
the more important is the right of the h
state to fix the rates Of railroads on s
purely intrastate business, it havine a
been the settled law. or it had been )
the states had control of all purely 4
mfrastate affairs. while the intersta u
commerce commissions jurisdiction el
attached where interstate business was u
involved.
The lower court sustained the con "
tention Of the railroads in effect that ~
Thare it is proved that reduction in 81 81
rates made by a state on traffic with "a "a
In the state. nee Cessarily, through tha =.
laws OF business and competition force -
the carrier to change rates on inter -
state traffic. the power of the state -
thus nsed interferes with the federal "a
power solely to regulate in.ers a G
traffic and such enactments are void
The other points involved and urg
lY the railroads was that the enact -
nents complained of were confiscq -
.ory IN that they did not provide for 3 "
return to the railroads fef %
he services rendered. This is cons d "
sred very significant phase of these w
,ases, as the finding of the court wi
nv03ve the determination of the val NJ ~
'es upon which railroads are entitled '"'
o earn returns and the question Of the a',' 1v'
roper method of yaluing railroad -. -
property for the purpose of rate max. ''o
Rg is Of far-reaching consequence.
State rate laws and orders in Mis- ,
ouri, Kentucky. West Virginia, Ore vz,i
on, Minnesota, Arkansas and Ohi- ~.
re directly affected by the decis' on sor
{ the court. obi