Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1913-06-09
DIVIDED DECISION
IN MINNESOTA
STATE RATE
LITIGATION
United States Supreme Court
Holds Unconstitutional Reg
ulatiOn Of One Road; Vail
dates That of Other Two.
HILL LINES ARE CHIEF
SUFFERERS FROM RULING
LBy - wIre . I1,enIug HeraIa.l

lbg Leased Wire to Evening Hcrnf0.l
washington, June o.--The state of
Minnesota won substantial victory
In the supreme court today when "a
the Minnesota rate case Juatice
Hughes. for the court. held that th,
rates OF the Minneapolis A. 81. Louis
railroad were cOnhscatory and uncon-
stltutional. but that the rates 81 the
Northern Pacific and Great Northein
were valid.
The decision was a victory for the
sesse on the Interstate commerce
phases or the controversy and UPON
the confiscstory features with the ex-
ception OF the portion affecting the
Minneapolis a II. Louis railroad.
Justice Hughes saia:
IL The constitution gives con-
gress an authority al all times ade-
uuate 10 secure the freedom OF inter-
state commercial intercourse from
state control aud 20 provide effective
regulation for that intercourse az the
national interest may demand.
"2. The commerce that Is confined
within one state and does not affect
other states Is reserved to the state
This reservation IL only OF that power
which is consistent with the grant 20
congress. The authority OF congress
extends To every part of Interstate
commerce and 10 every Instrumental
ity or agency by which IL Is carried
on; and the full control by congress
over the subjects committed 20 its
regulation Is not TO be denied or
thwarted by the o-mingling of inter-
state and intrastate operation.
IS. Even without action by con-
gress the commerce clause of the
constitution excludes the states from
direct control OF subjects embraced
within the clauses which are o. such
nature that their regulation should be
prescribed by single authority.
There is thus secured the essential
l,anunlty OF Interstate intercourse
from the imposition by the state OF
direct burdens and restraints.
- but there remains To the states
the exercise OF the power appropriate
10 their territorial jurisdiction In
making suitable provision for local
needs. The state may provide local
improvements. create aud regulate
local facilities and adopt protective
measures of "a reasonable character
in the interest OF health, safety. NOR
though interstate commerce may incl
dentally or indirectly be Involved.
where matters falling within state
power are by reason of their relation
10 interstate commerce within the
reach of federal power, congress must
be the Judge of necessity of fedeal
action. and until coneGess acts the
states may act"
The so.called state rate" cases
have presented TO the supreme court
one OF the momentous problems OF
the decade
In general terms. this group OF
cases called upon tho court To decide
two questions. one was whether the
states IN passing maximum freigh,
and two-ccnt passenger laws had un'
duly interfered with interstate COM
merce. The other was whether those
laws connscated the property of the
railroads by requiring them To trans
act business at "a loss.
The group consisted OF forty -ilvo
cases An arose out of legislation
enacted by state legislatures about
1907, or Just after the federal gov
ernment had passed the Hepburn
rate law. The forty-fve cases con-
cerned directly the laws in six states,
Missouri. Minnesota, Kentucky, ore
gon, Arkansas and West Virginia
Similar litigation arose In Alabama.
Iowa, Kansas. Nebraska, oklahoma
and South Dakota. In all Il was said
that seventy-siX suits In federal
courts depended upon the decision Ia
the forty.hye eases before the su-
preme court
The first of the foIty-hve cases -
reach the supreme court we're the
Missouri rate cases. In Missouri the
eighteen railroads crossing the state
attacked, In separate suits, the valid
lity OF state laws fixing the maximum
rate on freight and limiting pasSen
ger fares 10 two cents "A mile. Judge
Mcpherson, of the United States CIR.
cult court for western Missouri, helu
that the rates were conhscatory oi
the railroads property and therefore
unconstitutional. hut he declined q
hold that they lntertered with inter
state commerce. Both the railroads
and the state appealed 10 the su'
preme court. bringing in all thirty-Hl,
Missouri cases,