The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1914-06-24

Washington, June 22.-The inter
= state commerce commissions so call.
ed Intermountain rate orders were
sustained as valid by the supreme
court which held at the same time
that the long and short hauls clause
of the interstate commerce law was
constitutional. Both had been at
tackled by transcontinental railroads
The defunct commerce court, pass
ing over the constitutional question
had annulle the orders on the ground
that the commission had no authority
to issue blanket" or Zone" orders
and might act only on the reasonable
ness of specific rates.
In overturning the contention today
and holding that the commission dld
have that power, the Supreme
court decided a point lawyers and
close observers Of the interstate COM
merce commissions procedure say is
of equal Importance to the 1ntermoun-
tain rate case itself-if not greater.
Opposition to the five per cent in
crease in freight rates being asked by
the eastern railroadS-on which the
interstate commerce commission is
expected to announce its decision any
day-had been based principally on
the contention that the commission
did not have authority under the law
to grant such blanket" increase.
Effect Unknown.
What the effect, if any, Of the decls-
ion of the rate case may be, only can
be the subject of conjecture. Some
along the we'll informed in the COM
missions procedure, however, say the
decision in the disposition of the rail-
roads application had been delayed,
awaiting the supreme courts decision
on that point.
AS result of the decision, all doubt
is removed as to the commissions
right to pass on the reasonableness
of a lower rate for haul to a more
distant city than to a nearer one in
the same direction. 1t recognizes the
commissions power to fix such rates
by zones as distinguished from TAX
ing up the conditions surrounding
each point of shipment in the United
States.
Chief Justice White said this was
the unanimous decision Of the court.
The commerce court held that the
commission could not make blanket
or zone" rates; that is the conten-
tion of those who are opposed to the
five per cent increase in freight rates
now being asked by the eastern rail-
roads. The Intermountain Rate or
ders were issued in June and July,
1911, by the interstate commerce COM
mission, under the authority of the
"long and short haul section" Of the
interstate commerce act, which cloth
ed the commission with discretion to
make exceptions to the general rule,
laid down in the law that railroads
should not charge more for short
haul than for a longer haul in the
same direction and over the same
lines or routes.
Asked for Exceptions.
Practically all of the railroads
traversing the 'intermountain regions
of the West applied to the commission
to have exceptions made so that a
higher rate could be charged on the
shipments from the east in inter-
mountain cities, such as Spokane,
Washington; Reno, Nevada, and Phoe-
nix, Arizona. The rates from cities
east OF the Rockies had for years
been made by adding the through
rate to the Sacific coast and the local
rate from the Pacific back to the in
terror CITY, The intermountain points
rebelled against what they claimed
was a monopoly given to the Pacific
coast cities of the trade of all points
from the very doors of the inter-
mountain cities. The Chief Justice
next upheld the making of the rates
u commission by zones.
"The zones selected by the commits
sion were in. substance the same as
those probably fixed by the carriers
as the basis of the rate making, which
was included in the tariffs which were
under investigation and therefore we
may put that subject out Of view," he
said.
Indeed, except as to questions Of
power, there is no contention il the
argument as to the inequality of the
zones or percentages or as to any un-
due preference or discrimination re-
sulting from the action taken, but be
this as it may, in view Of the finding
of the commission as to the system OF
rates, prevailing in the tariffs, which
were before it, of the inequalities and
burdens engendered by such a sys-
tenn, possible agrandiZement unnatur-
ally beyond the limits produced by
competition in the competitive points
and against other points by the
tariff question, facts which we accept
and which indeed, are unchallenged,
we see no ground for saying that the
order was not sustained by the facts
upon which it was based, or that it
exceeded the powers which the statute
conferred, or transcended the limits
of the sound, legal discretion which is
lodged in the commission when act
ing upon the subject before it,
On Haul Clause.
On the constitutionality of the long