Evening star., 1913-06-16
STATE RATE LAWS
GET COURTS 0. K.
Held Invalid Only Where 0p-
GRAFTON Is Shown to Be
CenfiScatory.
ONLY KENTUCKY'S CASE
REMAINS TO BE DECIDED
Missouri, Arkansas, Oregon and
West Virginia Sustain Their
Right to Act.

Right to Act
: The Supreme Court of the United States
Today upheld the validity OF Mi ssouri's
maximum freight and two-cent passenger
q laws as to most OF the railroads in that
state: upheld similar laws in Arkansas,
and held that the state freight rates es-
tahlished in Oregon, and the two-cent pas
Senger law of West Virginia did not in
terfere with Interstate commerce No
claim had been made that these laws
were confiscatory.
Justice Hughes apnounced the de-
clsion of the court in each instance
lic failed To announce a decision of
the court in the Kentucky rate case.
MI claims that the state laws in
question interfered with Interstate
commerce were swept aside. following
the precedent set in the Minnesota rate
decision Of week ago.
Confiscation Not Shown.
In the majority of the Missouri cases
and in the Arkansas case the court
held the railroads had presented too
general data on which to base a claim
that their property was being taken
without compensation through the ope-
ration of the new rates.
In the Missouri cases the court held
the rates confiScatory on the ST Louis
and Hannibal. Kansas City. Clinton and
Springfield and Chicago Great Western
railroads.
tory as to the Chicago Great Western
was made to apply, by virtue OF Stlpula-
tion between the state and the railroads,
TO the Quincy Omaha and Kansas City
railroad and the st. Joseph and Grand
Island railway
The decision was based upon the two
cent passenger law and the maximum
freight law.
Valid as to Other Roads.
The court held the rates valid as TO the
st. Louis Southwestern. the Missouri
Pacific, the st. Louis. Iron Mountain and
Southern, the Wabash, the Chicago. Mil
'waukee and st. Paul, the Chicago and
Alton. the Chicago. Burlington and
Quincy. the Atchison, Topeka and Santa
Fe, the Kansas City Southern. the Mis-
spuir, Kansas and Texas the Chicago
Rock Island and Pacific Gncluding the ST.
Louis, Kansas City and Coloradop and
the St Louis and San Francisco.
In each of these cases the DEGREES of
the lower court in favor of the rail-
? roads. were reversed.
-, Justice Hughes. who announced the
+. decision. held that the point sought to
be made by the railroads to the effect
that the Missouri rates were an inter
ference with interstate commerce must
be decided against them for the same
reasons given by the court in the
Minnesota rate cases.
Power Of State Upheld.
The constitutionality OF a state two
cent passenger law OF a maximum
freight law was determined in the
Minnesota case. where the court held
that a state had right to pass such
laws, provided the rates imposed under
them We're not conffseatory. This Same
application was made. to the Missouri
case today.
The decision is a partial victory for
Missouri, as the lower court had held the
rates contfscatory on all the roads
In the cases in which the rates were
held confiscatory the Supreme Court to-
day modified the lower courts decree 50
that the railroad commissioners and the
attorney general of the state may apply
to the court for further action whenever
II snail appear that by reason of
change in circumstances the rates fixed
by the states acts are sufficient to yield
reasonable compensation.
Court Left in Dark.
Justice Hughes took up the Burliny-
ton case first He said that the court
was left in the dark as to the value
OF the road. The taking Of the assess
ment for taxation purposes as basis
upon which TO arrive at rate value he
declared was too uncertain upon which
20 base claim of confiscation He
pointed out the assessment value vas
multiplied by three to reach a yalne
for rates
He showed that IL this basis was
extended to the whole Burlington svs-
tenn the value upon which rates were
to be based would exceed by Sis. 600
oo9 the capitalization of the system.
Justice Hughes took up the amor
uonment OF expenses az being the main
point In the controversy, ''around
which the battle was waged furiously."
basis and the railroads on a revenue
basis.
Justice Hughes smiled repeatedly as he
poihted OUT the Inconsistencies Of the rev
enue basis as adopted by the lower cour,
10 apportion the cost Of Interstate ana
fntrastate business. He declared the on
portionment on this basis was too gen
eral, when actual tests could be made &c
10 the cost of doing interstate and in
trastate business.
In the st. Louis and Hannibal Inc.
tice Hughes said neither the experts for
the railroads nor for the state could find
basis on which the rates would he re-
munerattve.
Two Suits From Arkansas
Arkansas rate cases consisted of two
suits brought by the ST Louis. Iron
Mountain and Southern Railway Com
poHy anu tHe 81 Louis South wesfarp
Railroad Company, to restrain the on
forcement Of the act OF the Legislature
passed February 8. 1907, fixing the max.
i-num fare for passengers at 2 CENTS ,
Hlie' and also the orders of the railroad
commission. made June 4 1908 prescrih-
ing maximum freight and passenger
rates. P"s'oAsef
e.s5s Ihe oregon cases consisted of tuyo
q suits brought by the Oregon Rai,roa6
!. :. and Navigation Company and tha
= southern Pacific Company, resnectiveiv
= The suit by the Oregon Railroad and
z Navigation Company was brought to
! restrain the enforcement of An ordsr
- of the railroad commission of Oreoon
= made April %. 1908. prescribing freieh,
: rates. The principal ground Of attscE
: was that the order and rates named
- would constitute an unconstttutiona1
- Interference with interstate commerce.
- In the ise OF the Southern Paci6c
- company I'm which the Oregon and Cali
= fornta Railroad Company was joined as
s. complainant the suit was brought to re
strain the enforcement of an order of the
= railroad commission made September u
y 4ai0, prescribing freight rates
s Passenger Rate Only.
y The West Virginia rate case consisted
= Of suit brought by the Chesapeake and