The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-06-17
Principle Given Sweep
ing Approval by Su-
preme Court.
FORMER RULING
NOT NJ ODIFIED
Any Who Hoped Minnesota De-
cision Might Be Softened Are
Disappointed, as DEGREES in
Latest Cases Do Not Vary
From 1t by SO Much
as Dot.

NashihS ION, June io-Nithout vary
Ing a dot from the principles laid down
last week in the Minnesota rate cases.
the Supreme Court OF the United
States to-day upheld state railroad
rate legislation in Missouri. Arkansas
oregon and West Virginia This leris-
lation included 2-cent passenger laws
In Missouri Arkansas and West Vir-
Rinla, maximum rate laws in Missouri
and Arkansas and freight rates out Of
Portland in the Oregon cases.
The only exception to the sweeping
approval OF State statutes was in the
case or several weaker roads in Mis-
souri, The Kentucky case was not de-
cided. 1t involves an attack upon
state rates from river points 20 inter
nai and distillery cities, and in
wolves In addition an attack on the
constitutionality OF the form of the
Mechord act. enabling the State Rail-
road Commission to fix reasonable rates
on intrastate business y decision in
this case may be Forthcoming when the
court meets again In October
Hughes Announces Decision.
Justice Hughes announced the de-
clsion In the rate cases to-day as he
did in the Minnesota cases week ago.
Wherever the point was raised that
the State laws interfered with inter
state commerce. the justice referred ITO
his Minnesota rate decision. Hc dis
appointed any who believed the court
might In some way modify that de-
cision.
We need not review the arguments
addressed to conditions of transporta-
ton in Missouri and the relation of
intrastate to interstate rates." he said
Tor while the case has It's special
facts by reason of location of the
State. and the use of the Mississippi
and Missouri Rivers as basing points
IN rate making, the controlling oues-
ton thus presented with reference to
the authority of the State to prescribe
reasonable intrastate rates throughout
It's territory. unless limited BY the ex-
ercise on the part of Congress of its
constitutional power over interstate
commerce and its Instruments, Is not
TO be distinguished in any material re-
spect from that which was considered
and decided in the Minnesota rate
cases,
The Oregon and West Virginia cases
were decided in favor of the states In
a few words. the only point raised BY
the railroads being that the laws in
terfered with interstate commerce.
Makes Full Explanation.
Justice Hughes went fully into an
explanation of claims in the Missouri
and Arkansas cases that the property
OF the railroads devoted to intrastate
business would he coniscatcd.
As result. the State rates will be-
come operative on the Chicago. Bur
Deka and Santa Fe: the Kansas City
Southern: the Missouri, Kansas and
Texas; the Chicago. Rock Island and
Pacific (including the ST Louis, Kan
sas City and Colorado); st. Louis and
san Francisco; the st. Louis South
WESTERN the Missouri Pacific: the ST.
Louis. Iron Mountain and Southern: tho
Wabash: the Chicago. Milwaukee and
st. Paul, and the Chicago and Alton.
For the present, the rates will not
become operative on the st. Louis and
Hannibal: the Kansas city. Clinton and
Springfield: the Chicago Great West
ern: the Quincy, Omaha and Kansas
city. and the st. Joseph and Grand Is
land
The court refused to accept the val
uation placed upon railroads in Mis-
souri, by the States assessing board
as a basis for fixing the fair value.
for figuring whether the rates confis-
Gated property. Justice Hughes took
the case of the Burlington. and showed
that by applying the assessment value
multiplied three times, was done
by the Federal court In MisSourD to
the whole system. q result would be
obtained of sll5.o00,0o in excess OF
the capitalization of the system Be
sides he said there was nothing to
show upon what the assessors fixed
their valuation. nor was it demon
strated that the assessors avoided the
rate decision.
Proof Not Convincing.
'Manifestly a finding OF confiscation
could not be based on such a valua-
tion in the absence OF clear and con-
vincing proof that the value actually
existed and that the different items
Of property were estimated respectively
by correct methods and in accordance
with proper criteria or value" said
Justice Hughes. This proof was lack
ing. In the case OF the ether road,
although the special considerations
which have been mentioned with re-
spect 10 the Burlington property may
not be applicable. still We are left in
uncertainty as TO the correctness OF
specific valuations which have been
made"
Apportionment OF property values
between interstate and intrastate pas
senger and freight traffic. according
TO gross revenue. was disapproved for
reasons stated IN the Minnesota rate
cases"
Coming to an apportionment OF ex
peases. Justice Hughes said the plan
adopted by the lower court OF apply
ing the revenue basis was open 10 tho
same objection as in the Minnesota
cases.
However. as to the st. Louis and
Hannibal and the Kansas city, Clinton
and Springfield, he said, the experts OF
bOtE the state ana the unitcu
in stating no basis could be found upon
which the proposed rates would yield
an adequate return. AS TO the Chi
cago Great Western. he said the errors
OF valuation and apportionment were
not sufficient TO warrant II reversal OF
the finding OF the lower court that the
rates were conhscatory. The rates as
10 the Quincy. Omaha and Kansas City
and the st. Joseph and Grand Island
/C0ntIruaa a., CAcon,, t,- ,r, = ----77---