The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1913-06-10
But the States Have Right TO
Make Them until the
Congress Acts.
DECISION OF COURT
Is Contrary TO the Usage of
the Country the Last
Hundred Years.

the application or the principles ialo
down by Justice Hughes IN the Min
nesota rate cases to the rate cases
from Missouri, Arkansas, kentucky,
oregon and West Virginia. were of
opinion rate making both in
| the state and before the federal
government had been reduced to
much, more accurate basis than ever
before. Il
All sortseof opinions pI;yailed as
, to- where the victory rested in the
Minnesota b decision. Minnesota
state officials in dispatches expressed
their pleasure over the result and
Attornsy General afdReynoIds and
members of the interstate commerce
Commission said they were fully
satisfied.
congressman Silent.
The prospect OF Congress taking
charge of state rates Affecting inter
state commerce indirectly lent en-
,couragement to the railroads that
they would escape from regulation
by forty-eight state commissions.
Members of the House and Senate
when asked for opinions as to
whether Congress would soon exer-
else the power found by the court
to rest with it to regulate such state
rates as. affect indirectly Interstate
commerce were not incltnedisto come
forth at first blush with a plan to
reverse the policy OF the federal gov
eminent through. the last hundred
years of leaving such regulations in
the hands OF the state.
The power of the states to fix rea-
sonable interstate rates on interstate
railroads, until such time as Con-
gress chooses to regulate these rates,
was upheld by the supreme court OF
the United States, in the Minnesota
freight and passenger rate cases. At.
the same time the court plaid down
far reaching principles governing
valuation of railroad property Tor
rate making purposes, and according
it these. held that the state of Min
nesota would confiscate the property
of the Minneapolis and st. Louis
railroad by its maximum freight
rate and two-cent passenger law.
1t enjoined the state from enforcing
these laws for this reason, for the
present.
The so-called state rate cases
presented to the supreme court one
of the momentous problems of the
decade.
in general terms. this group OF
cases called upon the court to de-
eide two questions. one was wheth-
er the states in passing maximum
freight and tyo-cent passenger laws
had unduly 4nterfered with inter
state commerce. 1.-THE other. was
whether those laws confscate the
the property of the railroads by re-
quiring them to transact business at
Two Questions.
The group consisted of forty-fiye
cases. All arose out of legislation
enacted by state legislatures about
1907, or just after the federal gov
eminent had passed the Hepburn
rate law: The forty-4ive cases con-
cerned the laws in six states, Mis-
souri,. minnesota, Kentucky, oregon,
Arkansas and West Virginia. SINH
liar cases arose in Alabama, Iowa.
kansas, Nebraska. Oklahoma and
South Dakota. In all. it was said
that seventy-six suits in federal
courts depended upon the decision in
the, forty-tve cases before the SUI
lnreme court
Missouri Cases First.
! The first of the forty-hve cases to
reach the supreme court were the
missouri rate cases. In Missouri
the eighteen railroads crossing the
state attacked. in separate suits, the
validity of state laws fixing the max
imum rate on freight and limiting
! passenger fares to two cents mile.
Judge MCPHERSON, of the United
states circuit court for western Mis-
tsouri, held that the rates were con-
iHscatory of the railroads property
and therefore unconstitutional, but
the declined TO hold that they inter
lfered with Interstate commerce Both
the railroads and the state: appealed
to the supreme court, bringing IN
all thirty-six Missouri cases. Two
cases growing out OF ''the Burlington
suit, we're presented to1the court lu
October. 1910, but they were re,
j .-,.-------
CONTINUED on page nye-l