The daily banner. (Cambridge, Md.) 1897-2008, 1913-06-10
PARTIAL VICTORY
IN BIG RATE CASE
Long Awaited Decree Han1ed
Down by Supreme Court
RULING MOST IMPORTANT

The Minneapolis & St. Louis Rates Art
confiscatory, While Those Of North
srn Pacific and Great Northsra Nr'
Valid.
Washington, June 10.-The state o.
Minnesota won substantial vistpry
in the supreme court, when in the a. IN
nesota state rate case, Justice HugEes
for the court, held that the rates o.
the Minneapolis & st. Louis railroad
were confiscatory and Unconstitutional
but that the rates of the Northern Pa
cific and Great Northern were VALID
The decision was victory for the
state on the interstate commerce
phases of the controversy affecIine
the Minneapolis & st. Louis.
Justice Hughes said, in part:
THE constitution gives congress
an authority at all times adequate te
secure the freedom of interstate com
mercial intercourse from state con
troll and to provide effective regulation
of that Intercourse as the national In
terest may demand.
"2-The commerce that is confined
within one state and does not affeci
that of states, is reserved to the state.
The Minnesota rate cases are
among the most important with which
the United States supreme court has
had to deal for many years. Theil
tendencies are far-reaching and have
had a visible effect on the stock mar
ket during the past few months.
Three cases are pending under the
title of the Minnesota rate cases. EAn
effort was made to enjoin the state OF
Minnesota from enforcing certain laws
passed by the legislature of that state
fixing the rates for freight and passen-
gers for strictly interstate traf1c
These rates provided for a reduction
in the maximum passenger fare pei
mile and reduced the freight rae
schedules materially on all trahc
originating and termina ing within
the boundaries Of the state of Minnie
sofa. The proceedings were first
brought by the railroads in the United
States circuit court of Minnesota.
Before the lower court the railro4ds
won their cases throughout and ne
state appealed. OF the issues involved
the more important is the right OF 4he
state to fix the rates of railroads pn
purely intrastate business, it hayMg
been the settled law, or 1t had l1aku
universally considered theretofofe ! sai
the states had control Of ssl !.
intrastate affairs, while the interstas {
commerce commissions jurisdiction
attached where interstate business was
involved.
The lower court sustained the con
tention of the railroads in effect that
where it Is proved that reduction In
rates made by state on traffic with
in the state, necessarily, through the
laws of business and competition force
the carrier to change rates on inter
state traffic, the power of the state
thus used interferes with the fedora
power solely to regulate interss ate
traffic and such enactments are void.
The other points involved and urged
by the railroads was that the enact
ments complained of were confisca
tory in that they did not provide for 9
sufficient return to the railroads fol
the services rendered. This is cons'd
cred very significant phase of these
cases, as the finding of the court wi ]
involve the determination of the val
ues upon which railroads are entitled
to earn returns and the question of the
proper method of valuing railroad
property for the purpose of rate max
ing is of far-reaching consequence.
State rate laws and orders in Mis-
souri,, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ore
gon, Minnesota, Arkansas and Ohio
are directly affected by the decision
of the court.