The Washington times., 1913-06-12
The Minnesota Rate Cases and the Decision of
#...# the Supreme Court.
CFrom the New York Press.)


would have been better for everybody concerned those who
eaped headong conclusions Minnesota
csonraroad bankers investors editors and
had waited look carefully all the decision Mr.
ce Hughes who opinion thinks speaks clearly
But the full decision long only much ground
but approached from angles Furthermore large part Of
the decision highly technical and therefore, perfectly
understood experts specialists needed deliberate
nation and close analysis.
Taking snap judgment of the decision
of scattered and disconnected paragraphs
ecty interested and understanding exactly the suits wee
nevertheless fell meaning the decision II
not surprising hen that the general public left
mind what the we'll there
fore, to begin at the beginning
Several years State of Minnesota passenger
freight charges at lower rates than were then existing within the
State Also they liked lower than those authorized by
the Interstate Commerce Commission for traffic.
Railroads brought suits have the State aside asking
for Federal rulings the of State authority into
conflict with the national authority well determine
on of unreasonable involving question confscaon
In the lower the railroads victories for their
hon Especially this in the of unreasonable
ness of the State the lower Federal holding that
State rates high enough enable the roads su
6cent upon the fair valuation their properties
The Supreme Court Mondayafer years of treshng
the the lower the decisions with
unimportant exception.
The Supreme Court opinion held thing
did have the make within boundaries because
Congress- in all its regulation of interstate had
taken away that power from the States.
Here the first chance for horseback opinion 60 asa
because large part of pubic-especay the stock
have concluded from this of the decision that all the
States of the Union thereby licensed make eight diff
ferent kinds of all working oregt different kinds of
burden and confound the
distracted railroads.
But nothing decided said Congress
had left the of making the States within their
boundaries but did that this couldn't and wouldn't
be taken from them On the contrary emphatay a
hrmed the of Congress protect its
and desirable making
the hands of States Indeed gave Congress very
broad hint to do that thing be from the following
extracts
The authority Congress enables
that which has been committed its and for this
to displace by substituting Of its
of
Congress subjects
the eommngng of operations
sfs shas adequate ] regulation OF he state - rates cannot nj @ DE
rates wn sdSstans ] @ m as the m eansnna for
shs rssuaon oUId app "
Far from decision having approved making anarchy
who created rather panicky stock market
of victory that for the
railroads. Probably exPresident Taft lawyer and the
Chief Magistrate having do with those rate cases for entire
versed the whole subject does oversate the effect OF that
part of the decision when he says:
The court holds that Congress has complete power to control
interstate commerce and to regulate it, and % that this %
includes the to regulate such business within State lines as
affects a Indirectly hs sdHr interstate hed ss business Sn acts in respect to
left the action of the
The judgment of
the pena vest the @ nss1
nrumntay with the authority to regulate and restrict such
railroad commission Of merely State rates
The result of victory principle
the national control of interstate and the
der that control effective and unio
Anyhow pretty clear by nearly everybody who
has studied the decision first excitement that
direct and immediate victory that part
opinion very substantial gain made fer them the
step might be better say the m action now
vtedto complete coordinate sngy responsible authority
HedgeviIle '|1; When TITS +