The Washington times., 1913-06-10
RAILROAD RATES
HANG IN BALANCE
Five States May Be Affected
BY Ruling Expected From
Supreme Court Today.
Continued from First Page.)

NNoDlilucu AiOiAi o. ocS-t
we enter the realm Of mere conjecture.
of the value of right-of-way, yards.
and terminals upon the so-called rail-
way value of the property. The allow
ance made for conjectural cost of ac-
QUESTION must be disapproved.
That depreciation OF railroad property
should and must be considered in zig
uring the actual physical valuation was
declared by the court.
II declared the appraisement should
be "of an instrument of public service
CT property, and not OF the skill OF the
when physical items are estimated" :"
the court asserted, "as worth so much
new, If in fact they be deprecated. this
amount should be allowed for. If this
is not done the physical valuation Is
manifestly incomplete"
In calculating value of property for
State and interstate traffic, in fixing
rates, the court declared:
There should be assigned to each
business that proportion of the total
value of the property which will cor
respond to the extent of Its employ
ment in that business"
Finding Is Disapproved.
The court disapproved the finding that
the cost of intrastate commerce, upon
a basis of property employed therein,
is two and a half times that Of inter-
state-"through RIGHTEOUSNESS, but
did not establish any hard and fast
rule for such computations.
"fhe absolute definition of the rights
of a State public utilities commission
Is the way Attorney General McRey-
nolds today characterized the Supreme
Courts decision in the Minnesota case.
THE decision sets at rest, once and
for ALL" he said. "any question as to
the right of a State public utilities
commission to regulate tntrastate
rates. 1t declares that intrastate
rates, once fixed by a State governing
beard, cannot be interfered with by any
decision of the Interstate Commerce
Commission. Congress alone, the Su-
preme Court has decided, can limit the
scope of any State commission.
"Just how sweeping the powers of
under Justice Hughes opinion, can't
say until have studied the text of his
30D00-word decision"
Senator Nelson of Minnesota declared
today that Congress will not upset the
States rights" principle established by
the court.
81 do not think that Congress will at
tempt to take away from the States the
power to control intrastate rates, said
Nelson. -The decision proves that the
States still have some rights left to con-
troll their internal affairs. / heartily
agree with the principles laid down. !
consider It one of the most important
decisions In many years"
View of Mr.. McChord.
1T is certainly the correct interpre-
tation OF the law. The effect will be
wholesome. The Interstate Commerce
Commission has always worked in per-
feet harmony with the States. Our plan
of dual government is not a failure.
State and national functions are per-
formed as symmetrically and harmon
iously In the administration of rate
laws as in the administration of laws
generally."-Charles c. McChord, Inter
state Commerce Commissioner and for
fourteen years chairman OF the railroad
commission of Kentucky.
The decision follows the established
legal landmark perfectly" declared Sen
tator Williams of Mississippi. 1T is a
splendid decision. 1t does not leave any
field of Jurisdiction under authority of
both the State and Federal Government,
but as is true in all other cases IL gives
the authority to the State until Con-
gress shall legislate otherwise"
II do not see how the court could de-
eide otherwise" said Senator Clapp, of
Minnesota. Yet after all il is a re-
lief to have the decision made. 1t is
one of the most important decisions
reference to regulations OF rates. As
am no longer Chairman o. the Senate
Interstate Commerce Committee. / do
not care to discuss the problems OF
legislation which nave be involved"
'sThe opinion as / understand it, said
Senator Works of California, "es-
tablished a double Jurisdiction over
rates within the States. 1t may lead
to a great deal of confusion If the
national Government does not aban-
don this field 0cf the States. l have
always favored national regulation
to secure uniformity of rates. but l
have always favored State regulation
where the Federal authority did not
rIx-'