Lower coast gazette., 1913-06-28
Railroad Control.

THE Supreme Court Of the United States last
week IN it's decision OF the Minnesota rate cases
rendered an important decision, that may lead
to subsequent congressional legislation, Whlch
NAV lil.;t the power Of the states more taan IS
now cor .,emplated. As our readers all Know,
the mater CT tie trade Of the state within Us
own limits is u..der the control Ct It's own iegls-
lature. Trade between states by constitutional
nrov;sion is under the control ct the Unlteu
States. This led to the creation Ct the y. ;.
Railway Commission ard TO constant endeavors
by that commission to prevent any lnJusTces
being cone to the people Of the United states
by certain Inonupelistic interests that eEdeaVof-
ed to secure long l1auls at & less rate than was
charged by the individual railway companies
for short hauls, the alleged cause CT this chs
elimination being the necessity CT naming low
rates in order to secure tie trelgats IS against
competition with water routes and for sucn
other causes as might be mere or less sell evil
dent. In the present case in minnesota the
two cent passenger rate YVES the point involved
and the Supreme Court has just stated that TIE
of the state Of Minnesota to compel its
81 RAILWAYS W dECCpS - 0fSO SSGo sSoSiS ASN
entirely competent to effect that purpose.
There has crept into the record apparently
as objter dicta the fact that the Supreme Court
holds that congress has the POWER to modify
this reserved right Of the states il It finds such
reserved right colliding IN any manner with the
trade between the states. The judgment as to
this collision would lie first with congress, that
MIGHT enact laws covering the case, and then
with the Interstate Commission and the various
courts for their Ultimate decision.
The salient point is that the two cent rate
case il Minnesota, based upon any data given,
is rot confiscatory Of the railway property. a
provision Of the constitution Of the United
States is to the effect that 70 ones property
shall be taken without adequate compensation.
If q legislature should therefore. attempt to
makr railway company carry passengers at
less than actual cost Of such carriage all the
elements CT cost being carefully considered,
such compulsory act would be in the nature OF
the confscation CT the railway property to a
greater or less degree. With its earning ca
pacity reduced below g eompensatlng pointsuch
legislation would necessarily be a confiscation
Of part Of the value Of the property. In this
way the recent decision Of the Supreme Court
seems TO leave the whole matter open awaiting
further legislation, if such be had.
Il will be recalled BY our readers that in
various states Of the union when the two cent
railroad rate went into effect, IL a number Of
the southern states the railway companies car
RED. the cases into the U. S. Court and for the
time heing there was O nrosneet Of quite q SHARP
collision between the two authorities and some
COMPROMISES were made and, in some cases, TIT
two-cent law was abrogated. It would seen
that the present view Of the Supreme Court i
different from the one that prevailed at tina
time, or that at least none Of these cases reach
ed the Supreme Court for such consideration a
has nov been given II.
What the outcome of tic matter will be Tin
ally is hard to say. The fact that the Frisc
Railway has been recently showing signs Q
distress indicates that tie railway business
suffering q depression at the present time, a
are rlany ether businesses. Surely the who'll
matter should be considered with extreme car
ard no unnecessary legislation h~e.cslled for an
10 display Of rafYaetofiness unoa the part
the railway compafs, fot hey. uofortunstel
have been in i'll reIute fes q loag Tine Eecaus
Of their seemingly n1oacIcl3stic character. W
reed the railways ard ye. We a9ast net K
tI,iaAa &a5f%V%4 gffI FGSGf{rs