Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1914-06-09
SHREVEPORT WINS |FREIGHT RATE CASE Supreme Court Orders Rail
 roads to Increase Rates in Texas.
ORDERS CONFLICTING
Under Texas. Laws, Railroads May Be Prosecuted Should They Comply With Interstate Commerce.
 Commission Instructions.

COulC COudy tuc lHlCl oldtO commerce commissions orders in Shreveport rate case, thus placing interstate railroads more under the commission and less under the state commission.
 Justice Hughes announced the courts decision. He spoke of the unrestricted power of the interstate commerce commission over interstate commerce, saying the commission was expressly created to prevent conflicting rate legislation. q
 Uustice Hughes pointed out that congres and not the state had The power to prevent the Instruments of interstate commerce from being used so as to injure interestate commerce. He quoted the case under the safety appliance law and the second Federal employers liability law, supporting the power of congress to keep the channels of interstate commerce clear. T :.
 Referring to the note in the Min nesota rate case, Justice Hughes said that decision was expressly reversed in those cases as to what the outcome would have been had the intertate commerce commission found that the Minnesota rates discriminated against interstate commerce.
 Far Reaching Effect.
 The far reaching effect of the de cision lies in the fact that rates which the interestate commerce com- mission ordered indirectly increased to. remove discrimination were pre- scribed by the Texas state railroad Commission Under the federal com missions order, the only way the railroads may escape conflict with the Texas commission is to reduce the interstate rates from Shreveport to Texas cities so as to put the Louisiana city on competitive basis with Texas jobbing centers.
 Should the railroads elect to in crease the Texas rates, as the com merce court had declared they must, a new chapter in the novel situation would develop. The laws of Texas would make the railroads liable to q $500 to each shipper for each ship were risregarded.
 Justice Hughes expressly recogliz- ed the importance of the case so stating as he concluded his opinion.
 'But it is essential" he added, "that interstate commerce have one master and not many"
 The fight for better rates for Shreveport jobbers into Texas prom ised from the start to establish pre- cedent governing the future trade of cities along state boundaries. So inn portant was the matter deemed to be that the Louisiana railroad commits sion itself initiated the contest before the interstate commerce commission im behalf of the iobbers along the Louisiana-Texas border.
 The Louisiana commission com plained to the interstate commerce commission in March, 1911, that the class rates charged by the railroads for transportation in a westerly di- rection from Shreveport to points in Texas were unjustly discriminatory in that they were much greater than the rates contemporaneously charged for the transportation of like traffic from Dallas and Houston, in Texas, to the same points. They complain ed, in substance, that trade wall hd been erected around Texas and that outside jobbers were not permit ted to enter into the enclosed field.
 Roads Say Rates Reasonable.
 The Houston, East and West Texas Railway company and the Texas X Pacific Railway company did not deny the discriuination, but answered that the Shreveport rates were reasonable il themselves, and that the Texas rates were not volun- tary but were prescribed by the Texas railroad commission. The interstate commerce commission is- sued an order, holding that an un- just discrimination existed. and l directed tn railways either to low CT the interstate rate from Ehreye- port to Texas points or to increase the Texas rates from Dallas and Houston to other Texas points, so | as to remove this discrimination. The railways vainly endeavored tosinduce | the now defunct commerce court to enjoin the enforcements. of this | order. A W!W
 One of the principal points of con tentlon in tl.e case was whether this was voluntary or an involuntary discrimination by the railways against Shreveport. This railway contended that it was involuntary be- cause they were directed by the Texas railroad commission to put in- to force the low Texas rate. For Il each higher rate charged, the rail- road contended they would be liable II under Texas law for s5,OOO penal ty to the state, and from $125 to $500 II to the shipper. In addition fine uf | $5,0o0 might be forthcoming for fail ing to obey an order of the state rail road commission.
 What United States COntended,
 The government, on the other hand. contended that the Texas rates were contended that the Texas rates were voluntary because the railways had not appealed to any court or commission to have the Texas rates