New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-06-10

sara NJ the interstate commerce act
and It's amendment. the state cohtihueo
% nossess the statewide authority
which II formerly enjoyed TO prescribe
reasonable rates for its exclusively IN
ternal traffic. That, as it plainly APP
pears. was the nature OF the actloh
taken bv Minnesota, and the attack
however phrased. upon the rates here
involved as an interference with IN
terstate commerce is in substance
denial Of that authority.
Having regard TO the terms OF the
federal statute. the familiar range OF
state action at the time II was enacted,
the continued exercise Of state au-
thority in the same manner and TO the
same extent after its enactment and
the decisions of this court recognizing
and UNFOLDING this authority, We find
no foundation for the proposition that
the act 10 regulate commerce contem-
plated interference herewith
Differs from Taft Policy.
1t is regarded as something OF a coinci-
dence that a court the majority Of the
members Of which were appointed b.
President Taft should have rendered
unanimously a decision which seems 10
be in striking contradiction to policy
strongly advocated by the former Attor-
ney General. Nh. WickerSham, and which
had the cordial support Of President Taft.
This was the federal incorporation OF
great industries. and. what both states
men believed TO oe its inevitable concom-
infant. the freedom OF such federally in
corporated institutions from restrictions
Of state legislation.
Ii was the belief OF both President TAFT
and his Attorney General that when Con-
gress provided the machinery for federal
incorporation the courts would ultimately
hold such federal corporations immune
from state restrictions. To-day's decision,
while affecting railways engaged in inter
state commerce and not federal corpora
tons. seems clearly to indicate that the
Supreme Court would not take that view
and that corporations. even those incor-
porated by the federal government, could
find no relief in such action from the
restrictions OF state legislatures. however
X
point where they became unconstitutional
because in violation OF the prohibition
against conhscation without due process
Of law.
There is in the opinion, however, an
intmation that Congress might protect
the railways by statute from the re-
strictons sought TO be imposed by the
states, and il this be true IT would
probably be equally true Of corpora
tons which secured their charters from
the federal government, provided Con-
oress so stipulated by statute.
Decision in $4,000 Words.
The decision was announced by Justice
Hughes and consisted Of some thirty-fve
thousand words
Justice Hughes considered the attack
on the state rates in two parts, the one
that they placed an unlawful burden on
interstate commerce and the other that
they were so low as 10 contiscate the
property of the railroads.
In considering the interstate commerce
phase he took II for granted that the
state had the power TO regulate rates be-
tween points within the state Of Mime
sofa on railroads not crossing state lines
and so far from the boundaries as not
10 compete with the cities OF other
states. or otherwise affect interstate COM
mcrcc.
lie next reached the conclusion that
intrastate rates. whether on purely in
trastate railroads or interstate railroads,
had not been regarded by the courts as
being A direct regulation Of interstate
commerce lie pointed 10 the regulation
Of rates on railroads in Illinois and the
Erie Canal in New York by the respec-
|. tive states concerned. in support OF his
n conclusion.
Tho most intricate argument in this
phase OF the controversy was made By
the Justice in considering whether state
rates on interstate carriers could have
such an indirect bearing on interstate
commerce as TO exclude the states from
imposing them. lie reached the conclu-
sion that this was a well known field in
which the states could exercise their au-
thority until Congress had seen 1T to
regulate the field exclusively. Finally, he
arrived at the conclusion that Congress.
in all its rate-making legislation. had eX-
pressly provided that The regulation
should not extend TO transportation
wholly within state.
Reviews Court Decisions.
Justice Hughes reviewed decisions Of
the court from it's very foundation. Our
system Of government is a practical ad-
iustment" said he, by which the ma
tionsl authority as conferred BY the Con-
stitution is maintained In its full scope
without unnecessary loss OF local eff
cheney. Where the subject is peculiarly
one Of local concern, and from It's nature
belongs 70 the class with which the state
appropriately deals in making reasonable
provision for local needs IL cannot be re-
garded as left TO the unrestrained will Of
individuals because Congress has not
acted. although it may have such rela-
ton 70 interstate commerce as 70 be with
in the reach of the federal power.
an such case Congress must be the
iudoe Of the necessity Of federal action.
Its paramount authority always ena-
bles il to intervene at its discretion for
the complete and effective government
of that which has been committed to
it's care, and, for this purpose and to
this extent its response 10 conviction
Of national need, to displace local laws
BY substituting laws Of it's own"
Among the laws which the states may