The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1913-01-11
BLOW At STATES RIGHTS.
SUPREME COURT KNOCKS OUT
LIMITED LIABILITY LAWS.
Highest Tribunal Decides Federal
actments on Interstate Traffic.

Washington, Jan. 1.-THE power of
the States over railroads and express
companies suffered a hard blow to-
day when the Supreme Court held
that since the passage of the Car
mack amendment to the Inter State
Commerce law in 1906 the States had
ceased to have power to annul con-
tracts between railroads and ship
pers limiting the liability for the loss
of Interstate shipments.
Another serious blow was deliver
ed when the court held that the States
since the passage of the Inter State
Commerce acts. and particularly the
Hepburn law in 1906, had no power
to penalize railroads for failure to
furnish cars for interstate shipments.
In this connection the court declared
unconstitutional the Minnesota Re-
ciprocal Demurrage law, authorizing
the recovery by shippers Of a dollar
day for every day during which the
railroad failed to furnish a car for
the movement of freight.
The changes thus effected revolu-
tionize the practice in many States.
The court pointed out that previous
to the passage Of the Carmack amend
ment the court had upheld an Iowa
statute, under which a contract limit
ing the damages in case Of loss had
been annulled, and had also approved
a Pennsylvania case in which it was
contended that the public policy of
the State was opposed to such con-
tracts.
AS result of the passage Of the
Carmack amendment, however, the
court speaking through Justice Lur-
ton, held that Congress had mani
tested it's intention to deal with the
subject of carriers liability for inter.
State shipments, and that being the
case the State laws must give way.
Consequently, its decision at once
annulled the Kentucky and Nebras-
ka iaw, holding such contracts yoid.-
The court not only annulled State
laws which seek to regulate the liza
bility, but it held that the Federal
law, as expressed in the Carmack
amendment, dealt with the subject Of
railroad shipments, and that 1t did
not prohibit contracts limiting liza
bility in return on low rate.
Justice Lurton said it was just as
reasonab bic to base rates on value as
on the character of shipments Fur
thermore, he added, it was not con-
formable to plain principles of JUS
tice that the shipper may mderstate
the value OF his property for the pur-
pose OF reducing the rate and then re-
cover a large value in case of loss.
He laid down the principle that
so long as a railroad or express COM
pany has published it's rates, based on
the valuation Of the property, the
transportation company need not in
quire as to the value. He declared
that the shipper was bound by what
the receipt for the goods showed and
by the schedule OF rates filed with the
Interstate Commerce Commission.
AS to the Reciprocal Demurrage
law for Interstate commerce, the
court said that the Hepburn Rate law
expressly fixed the duty of carriers
to furnish cars and that preculded the
States from acting further on that
subject.
The contention OF the advocates and
Minnesota reciprocal demurrage was
that it placed the shipper on equal
grounds with the railroad in that if
the railroads had the right to demand
demurrage OF shippers when they are
tardy in unloading cars the shipper
should have the same right to collect
demurrage from the railroad when it
Is tary in delivering cars for the
movement of freight.