The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-06-10

| have been without.
Delinauents Must Pny Tn.
| Lists or delinquent State taxpayers
| respect to the maintenance OF inter
state rates by reason Of their relation
| to intrastate rates, are matters for con-
sideration and practical Judgment OF
/ Congress. II the situation has become
such that adequate regulation of inter
/ state rates cannot be maintained with
out imposing requirements with respect
TO such intrastate rates of Interstate
/ carriers as substantially affect inter
/ state rates. II is for congress 20 de-
| stitutional authority over interstate
commerce and it's Instruments. the
measure OF the regulation 1t should
supply.
1T is the function OF the court TO in
terpret and apply the law already
! enacted. but not, under the guise of
construction. TO provide a more COM
! prehensive scheme of regulation than
! Congress has decided upon. Nor in the
absence of Federal action. may effect
| be denied TO the laws of the State
enacted within the. field. which IL is
| entitled TO occupy until its authority
is limited through tho exertion by Con-
gress OF its paramount constitutional
power.
20. On the issue of connscation: The
alternating power is legislative
! power, and necessarily implies a range
of legislative discretion. The court
| does not sit board of review to
substitute its Judgment for that of the
Legislature or OF that of the commits
sion fully constituted by it. as TO mat
tiers within tho province of either. The
question is whether. in prescribing a
general schedule OF rates involving the
prottableness OF the interstate opera
lions OF the carrier. taken as a whole
the State has superseded the constitu-
tional limit By making the rates con
hscatory. The property of the railroad
corporation has been devoted to pub
lie use. But the State has not seen tit
to undertake the service itself and
the private property embarked in 1t
is not placed at the mercy OF legisla-
tive caprice. II rests secure under the
constitutional protection which extends
not merely TO the title, but to the right
TO receive Just compensation for the SER
vices given TO the public.
| Proof nsufficient.
40 In the cases of the Northern Pa
cifc and Great Northern companies on
the examination OF estimates OF value
and methods of apportionment. it is
concluded that the proof is insufficient
to justify finding that the rates were
conisca tory. and the DEGREES are re
| NeTSSO, win instructions 10 dismiss the
! bill in each case without prejudice.
I'll. In the case of the Mnnea polls
and 81. Louis Railroad Company. it is
found, in view of the special facts APP
pearing, that the margin OF error in
the estimates and calculations was not
| sufficient to affect the result The de-
cree in that case adjudging the rates
to be confiscatory, is therefore af-
frmed. with the modification that the
members of the railroad and warehouse
commission and the Acknowledgement
of the State may apply to the court by
! bill or otherwise. they may be adj
vised, for a further order or decree
whenever it shall appear that by rea
son Of change in circumstances the
| rates fixed by the States acts and or
| ders are sufficient to yield to this COM
panv reasonable compensation for the
services rendered.
History of Rate Cases.
The so-called State rate" cases
| have presented to the Supreme Court
| one Of the nome ntous problems Of the
| decade
| In general terms, this group OF
| cases called upon the court to decide
two questions One was whether the
States in passing maximum freight and
2-cent passenger laws had unduly In
| tcrferred with interstate commerce.
| The, other was whether those laws
confiscated the property of the rail-
roads by requiring them to transact
! business at loss.
The group consisted OF forty-fve
cases All arose out OF Legislator
| enacted by State Legislatures about
1907. or Just after the Federal gov
crnment had passed the Hepburn rate
| law The forty-flve cases concerned
! directly the laws In SIX states Mis-
! souri,. Minnesota. Kentucky Oregon,
| Arkansas and West Virginia Similar
| litigation arose in Alabama. Iowa.
Kansas Nebraska, Oklahoma and
| South Dakota. In all, 1t was said that
| scventy-six suits in Federal courts
depended upor the decision In the for
! ty-nve cases before the Supreme Court.
The first of the forty-fve cases to
| reach the Supreme Court were the Mis-
| souri rate cases. In Missouri the
/ eighteen railroads crossing the State
| attacked inSeparate suits. the validity
! of state laws fixing the maximum rate
! on freight and limiting passenger
| fares to cents mile. Judge Nc
| Pherson, OF the United States Circuit
| Court for Western Missouri, held that
| the rates were ccnfscatory Of the rail-
| roads property, and, therefore, un-
constitutional, hut he declined to hold
| that they interfcred with interstate
| commerce.
| Both the railroads and the State ap-
pealed TO the Supreme Court. bringing
in all thirty-six 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 argument with the
other Missouri cases in April. 1912. The
i State protested that Judge Mcpherson
should not have apportioned expenses,
4 LIZ t~-t@ CA~k ia