The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1914-06-09
Saves Railroads from Many
Masters in Conducting
Interstate Commerce
TWO CENT PASSENGER
FARE MAY BE FOUGHT
Justice Hughes Rendered the Opinion
Court Holds That Congress Incl
dentally May Regulate Interstate
Rates.

dentally May Regulate Interstate
Rates.
WASHINGTON, June "a decision
handed down yesterday by the United |
States supreme court on the so-callcd |
Shreveport case is the most important |
that has come from that tribunal in
regard to railroad rate making since |
the creation of the interstate commerce |
commission.
Under the decision the authority of |
the federal government to regulate in.
terstate commerce through the inter
state commerce commission is made
supreme
State laws and orders of state com
missions conflicting with the federal
laws must give way and vexatious
orders or regulations promulgated by
the state authorities as burdens on
interstate commerce can be set aside
by order of the interstate commerce
commission.
Thus the railroads of the country
finally get a means of relief from the
harassing and conflicting state laws
and orders.
Offers Escape from Two-Cent Fare
tE HoN II OtttuB{i 1DE iHt bStdpc
from the two-cent passenger fare laws
when they impose undue burdens on
interstate commerce and from other
local impositions that have compelled
the railroads operating between the
states to maintain the high rates for
/ interstate shipments in order to save
themselves from losses caused BY ruin
Gus rates fixed by state laws.
The decision is regarded as eOOc n
making 1t marks a long step in the
evolution Of federal control not only
i over interstate shipments but over
/ the agencies of interstate commerce.
/ The decision gives the railroads what
| they hoped to obtain from the memo
rable Minnesota rate decision a year
/ ago, but which they were denied
through the failure of the court to pass
on the question Of the conflict of power
between the states and the federal
government when that power has been
asserted by the latter through the com
merce commission.
The belief expressed here is that one
Of the effects of the decision will be a
REIMBURSEMENT of passenger fares, which
Il have long been in q state of confusion
as result of state laws and regula-
tions.
: Officials of the interstate commerce
commission see in this decision an enc
of the inharmonious and inconsistent
! decisions it has been obliged to render
in attempting to adjust itself to state
: statutes and regulations. In the future
: state rates and practices must line VI
: in accordance with the findings of thu
: interstate commerce commission.
: Before there are any changes II
= rates, however, the interstate com
! merce commission will have to TAX
) action 1t is probable that the decision
!; will be followed by the reopening o
many eases to which the new principl
viii be applied.
/ Directed Against Texas Board.
The decision upholds the order of tn
interstate commerce commission Ii
: rected against the railroads affecte
= and requires them to equalize rates a
: between hauls in interstate commerce
G, and for shipments between point
$ wholly within a state. While directe
,r against the railroads the interstat
5, commerce commission order was reall
A. aimed at the Texas railroad commi
tt sion.
- In the Minnesota rate ease handle
n down a year ago the court held tha
= cause the interstate commerce commi
- sion had issued no order and had NJ
- sought in any way to regulate the a
r. legged discriminating practices resultir
= from the orders of the Minnesota raj
= road commission relating to intrasta
commerce.
= In the Shreveport case the inte
- state commerce commission had issu,
r an order against certain railroads on
- rating in Louisiana and Texas, diree
= ing them to equalize rates on shi
- ments between Shreveport, La, al
certain points in the state of Tex
with other rates between points on t
same lines of road wholly within t
state of Texas.
AM The supreme court now has affirm
10 the judgment of the commerce cou
in an opinion by Justice Hughes viii
asserted in language that is likely
become historical the unrestrained pc
. CT of the federal government to reg
late interstate traffic and the agenc
OF interstate commerce and to reno
- any distractions or burdens upon su
commerce.
The opinion makes it clear that
only thing that prevented the supre
- court ordering an equalization OF IA
between interstate and intrastate sh
ion ments involved in the Minnesota 7;
lch case was the fact that the federal g
ING ernment had not asserted its author
ath through the interstate commerce &C
mission making an order III the pre-
). Uses.