The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-06-11
RATE POWER OF STATES.

The chaotic state Of our legislation
as to the regulation of the railway in
terstate transportation business of the
United States is fairly laid bare by the
u. S. Supreme Court in the Minnesota
rate case. The State Railway Commits.
sion of Minnesota established intra-
state rates which gave certain points
in Minnesota an advantage in trans
portation over what the Interstate
Commerce Commission held to be cor
responding points in other States.
Thereupon the commission forbade the
enforcement of those rates. The Fed
eral Court Of the Eighth Judicial Cir
cult upheld the Interstate Commerce
Commission. But now the L. S. Su.
preme Court overrules the Circuit Court
and holds that the State of Minnesota
through its Railway Commission has
the right to establish the intrastata
rates.
Justice Hughes, in stating the opin.
ion of the Circuit Court, took it for
granted that State has the power to
regulate rates between points in Min
nesota or on railroads not crossing
State lines, and so far from the boun-
daries as not to compete with the cities
| Of other States or otherwise affect in
terstate commerce. lntrastate rates,
he held, on purely intrastate railroads
connecting with interstate railroads has
| not been regarded by the courts as be-
ing a direct regulation of interstate
| commerce. In considering rates on
State railroads or intrastate carriers
which have such direct bearing on in.
terstate commerce as TO exclude the
States from Immediately imposing them.
he reached the conclusion that this was
a 'well known field, in which the
States could use their authority until
Congress had seen fit to regulate the
field finally
Tn discussing the power OF the States
in this matter. Justice Holmes held
that State could build its own high
ways if it saw fit, as well as canals and
| railroads. 1t could build railroads COW
ering the State and thus join its border
cities and commercial centers by new
| highways Of intercourse to be always
| available upon reasonable terms. Cor
lrespondingly, of course. adjoining States
could do the same, and if this method
was put into full effect, every State
could have a complete network of
| railways within its own boundaries out
of the jurisdiction Of the United States
Commerce Commission, and functions
could be formed between State systems
that would practically eliminate Fed.
eral control. But the learned Justice
pointed out that this condition of the
laws, as they exist, could be changed
at any time by Congressional action.
The right of the States in all this as
affecting Interstate commerce in any
way is merely allowable until Congress
sees fit to CIRCULATE the field finally -
All this calls attention directly and
powerfully to the need of systematic
ing our whole body of interstate rail
ways. 1t is manifest that the States
| themselves cannot IN fact control these
interstate lines so far as interstate
commerce is concerned, II is agreed
| by Justice Holmes in this decision that
whatever power the States have upon
the point in controversy is subject at
any time to be taken away from them
| when Congress acts. The inevitable
conclusion, therefore, is that the inter
state railways Of the United States
must be made subject to National auth
ority in all Of their operations Until
this is done, such questions as these
now decided are certain to come up in
one form or another. The chief value
Of this decision, therefore, we consider
to be in the point so frankly stated by
| Justice Holmes, that Congress can leg
! islate out of existence the power of
the States in all such matters as was
considered in this case The natural
and what seems to us the unavoidable
conclusion of the whole matter must be
the National incorporation Of all inter
state transportation companies, and the
complete relegation of control over such
companies to the authority of Congress.
Indeed. this regulation is already com
pletely given to Congress by the Con.
stitution. 1t is only because of the
lack Of legislation for the National in
corporation of such companies that
questions like this come up in the
courts
The other feature Of the case, that
which dealt with the rates, was against
the State; but the two railroad com.
panies, the Northern Pacific and the
Great Northern. which did not make
this confiscatory plea, do not receive
the benefit Of it, while the Indianapo-
lis & st. Paul Railroad Company, which
did make that plea, gets this decree
accordingly, relieving il from the rates
established by the State; these rates
being declared by the Supreme Court