Clearwater Republican. [volume] (Orofino, Idaho) 1912-1922, 1913-06-20
MOST VITAL COMMERCIAL CUES
TiONS INVOLVED IN RECENT
SUPREME COURT RULING.
STATES ALLOWED TO MAKE R.R.RATES
Among the as Cases Decided Were
Several From the West-Congress
MAY Take a Hand Now-Ques-
ton Still Open.


cial questions than those involved in
the decision handed down by the SUI
preme court of the United States Mon
day involving the right Of the various
states to provide regulations, includ-
ing the making of rates, for railway
systems traversing their territory, IT.
respective of the fact that the COM
panies were engaged in Interstate
commerce. The opinion was filed IN
the Minnesota state rate case, IN
which Justice Hughes held that the
rates. as applied to the Northern Pa
cific and Great Northern railways,
were valid, while ruling that those in
volving the Minneapolis & st. Louis
railroad were confiscatory and, there
fore. unconstitutional.
The history Of this class OF litiga-
ton is thus reviewed in the press dis
patches: In general terms, this group
of cases called upon the court to de-
eide two questions. One was whether
the state in passing maximum freight
and 2-cent passenger laws had unduly
interfered with interstate commerce.
The other was whether those laws
confiscated the property OF the rail-
roads by requiIi ing them to transact
business at loss.
The group consisted of As cases.
All arose out Of legislation enacted by
state legislatures about 1907. or just
after the federal government had
passed the Hepburn rate law. The
As cases concerned directly the laws
in six states, Missouri, Minnesota,
Kentucky, Oregon, Arkansas and West
Virginia. Similar litigation arose in
Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska,
Oklahoma and South akota. In all, 1t
was said that 76 suits in federal
courts depended upon the decision in
the AS cases before the supreme court.
The first of the As cases to reach
the supreme court were the Missouri
rate cases. In Missouri the Is rail
roads crossing the state attacked, in
separate suits, the validity OF state
laws fixing the maximum rate on
freight and limiting passenger fares
to 2 cents mile. Judge Mcpherson,
of the United States circuit court for
Western Missouri, held that the rates
were confscatory of the railroads
property and, therefore, unconstitu-
tional, but he declined to hold that
they interfered with interstate com.
merce. Both the railroads and the
state appealed to the supreme court
bringing in all SO Missouri cases.
Two cases growing out of "the Bur
lington suit" were presented to the
court in October, 1910, but they were
restored to the docket for argument
with the other Missouri cases on April
/, 1912. The state protested that
Judge Mcpherson should not have ap
and Interstate business on revenue
basis, but rather on a car-mile, or ton
mile basis.
The Minnesota rate case arose out
of suits by stockholders of the North
ern Pacific, the Great Northern anG
the Minneapolis & St. Louis railroads
against the companies to enjoin then
from obeying the maximum freight
and 2-cent passenger laws as uncOn
stitutional, and against the state of
ficials, to enjoin them from enforcing
the laws. Judge Sanborn, of the
United States circuit court, held the
laws unconstitutional, of a confisca
tory nature, and that they burdenet
interstate commerce. The three suit.
were appealed to the supreme court
The contest over the Interstate com
MERGE feature Of the controversy wa!
similar to that in the Missouri cases
In the Oregon cases 1t was contend
ed that there was an interference will
interstate commerce. The Oregon
Railroad 4 Navigation company al
legged that the state railroad commits
sion, in reducing the state freigh
rates from Portland to eastern Oregon
cities, affected q reduction of inter
state rates to those cities, because thu
state rates were used as basis fol
the interstate rates. A similar claim
was made by the Southern Pacific
company as to rates along its line
The United States circuit court TO
Oregon upheld the rates. An attacl
was also made upon the constitution
atty Of the law creating the Oregon
railroad commission. That, too, wa
upheld by the lower court.
The court, in concluding its sum
mary, after pointing out the genera
authority of the national government
over Interstate commerce, concludes