The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1913-05-02
BIG JOLT GIVEN
STATE RATES
Cannot Interfere With Interstate
Commerce.
VICTORY FOR THE SHIPPERS.
Commerce Court upholds Orders OF
Interstate Commerce Commits
sion and Powers OF
Congress.

Washington.-The Commerce Court
upheld the Interstate Commerce Com
missions orders in the Shreveport,
Texas, rate cases, and in many re-
spects sustained principles which the
railroads are asking the Supreme
Court to adopt in the As state rate
cases now awaiting decision. The Su-
preme Court entirely upheld the pow
ers of Congress and the Interstate
Commerce Commission to remove dis
ordinations caused by a state rail-
road commission enforcing interstate
rates lower than interstate rates which
have been held to be reasonable.
Because of the similarity of the
Shreveport case to the state rate cases,
Attorney General McReynolds filed a
brief in Intervention in the state rate
cases with the Supreme Court as a
friend of the court" Attorneys for
the state of Minnesota filed their reply,
but expressed the opinion that the
Shreveport decision would not affect
their case, because the state of Mime
sofa, as distinguished from Texas, is
seeking to sustain the right of state
to establish system of intrastate
rates, presumably reasonable in them
selves and having no reference to in
terstate commerce
The decision is broad affirmation
of the power of Congress and of the
authority of the commission to remove
discrimination induced by rates made
by state railroad commission, which
are lower than interstate rates held to
be reasonable.
In view of low Texas state rates,
Shreveport, La, Immediately over the
Texas line, found it impossible to COM
pete with Dallas, Texas, for example,
because the interstate rates from
Shreveport were much higher than
those from Dallas to the same destina-
tions in Texas.
The commission found that the dis
elimination against Shreveport by the
Texas state-made rates was obvious
and conceded that the interstate rates
were reasonable. Evidence was
brought to show that the lower Texas
rates were imposed for the declared
purpose and in pursuance Of a settled
policy of the Texas Railroad Commits
sion to give Texas jobbers preferential
advantage over their competitors in
Louisiana and other states.
The commission, therefore, orders
the railroads to remove the discrimina-
ton. To do SO, it would have been
necessary for the railroads to advance
their Texas state rates in opposit'5n to
the state commissions orders. The
railroads applied to the Commerce
Court to set aside the Interstate Com
merce Commissions order.
1t was urged that the Federal Com
mission had no control of state-made
rates. This contention the Commerce
Court rejected by holding that the &C
ton of the Texas State Commission re-
suited in violation of the undue
preference" section of the federal law
The court distinctly upheld the para
mount authority of the Interstate Com
merce Commission. 1t says, in effect,
that the carriers were not under COM
pulsion to obey the order of the Texas
commission, because that, by the Inter-
state Commerce Commission order.
had been superseded by direction of a
superior authority" and that, there
fore, they had ceased to be bound by 4
any inconsistent laws or administra-
tive policy"
The effect of the courts holding is
that no state may, by its state rates,
impede the flow of commerce from other
states or protect It's own shippers
against outside competition.