Arizona republican., 1914-06-09
United States Supreme Court Decides Interstate Com merce Commission Has Power to Stop Dis crimination
STRIKE DOWN
 STATE RATES
The Case Decided Arose Out of Complaint of the
 Shreveport Merch a nts That Texas Commission Lower Rates Excessively
ASsocIArEn PRESS pIsPArCHl

ASSOCIATED PRESS OlSfaIIfJ
 WASHINGTON, June 2.-A long step toward placing the railroads under "one master instead of many was taken by the supreme court in upholding the power of the inter state commerce commission to strike down state rates that discriminate against interstate commerce. The court said in substance that the Min nesota and other recent state rate cases. in which the railroads lost. might have been decided otherwise lad the roads gone to the commits sion for relief instead of to the courts.
 The case arose out of the com plaint of Shreveport, La, merchants, that the Texas railroad commission had shut them out in Texas business by compelling the railroads to re- duce rates in Texas far below what the interstate commerce commission allowed the railroads running from Shreveport to Texas cities, to charge The court first decided that congress had the power to control | carrier to the extent necessary to prevent injurious discriminations against interstate traffic, and then held that congress had conferred this power to the interstate commerce commission.
 It is of. the essence of the power | to regulate interstate commerce that where it exists, it doimnates,' Jus tice Hughes said
 The fact that carriers are in struments of intrastate commerce as well as of interstate commerce does not derogate from the complete and paramount authority of congress over the latter or preclude the fed eral power from being exerted to | prevent the intrastate operations of such carriers from being made a means of injury to that which has been confined to federal care. Wher- ] ever the interstate and intrastate i transactions of carriers are so re 1 lated that the government of the one involves the control of the other. it is congress and not the state that is entitled to prescribe the final and dominant rule, for otherwise con- gress would be denied the exercise of it's constitutional authority and the state and not the nation would be supreme within the national fielti''
 In removing determinations against interstate commerce. the court held congress was not bound to reduce the interstate rates below what it may deem to be a proper standard
 to the carrier and the public.
 "Otherwise." said the opinion. ''it could prevent the injury to inter state commerce only by the sacrifice
 of it's judgment as to interstate
 rates.''
 Justice Hughes, who wrote the
 courts decision in the state rate
 case of a year ago. pointed out that
 the present case does not conflict with those cases. He said that un-
 doubtedly in the absence of the find
 ing by the commission of unjust dis
 criminations, intrastate rates were
 left to be fixed by the carrier and subject to the authority of the states We are not unmindful of the
 gravity of the question that is pre- scented when state and federal views
 conflict" the opinion concludes.
 But it is recognized at the be- ginning; the nation could not pros , per if interstate and foreign trade
 were governed by many masters, anC
 where the interests of the freedom
 of interstate commerce are involved , the judgment of congress and of tn,
 agencies it lawfully established mus
 control"
 , Members of the interstate com l (Continued on Page Two.)