New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-06-09
The Shreveport Rate Decision An
other Victory for Federal Rights.

In tho Shreveport railroad rate cases, ueVluo'
Yesterday the Supreme Court reasserted unequi''-
calv the principle that if any conflict ARISES oe-
onn state jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction III
the regulation Of railroad rates state rights muS'
give wav TO the rights of the nation. Inc coul'
has been working steadily toward that concluSloh'
which is indeed the only logical one, II the aulho
tv of the federal government over interstate COIL
,nerce in all its forms is TO he sustained ana Wiz
dicatcd.
4 house divided against itself cannot stanu'
neither can a system Of commerce regulation III
which the separate states may challenge ana GRIP
ple the power of the central government Jusuce
Hughes put the matter in nutshell yesterday
when he said, in delivering the courts opiHioh'
whenever the interstate and intrastate uahSaC-
lions Of carriers are related that the govern
ment Of the one involves the control OF the olher'
Congress- and not the state is entitled 10 prescribe
the final and dominant rule for otherwise congress
would be denied the exercise Of its constitutional
authority and the state and not the nation "ouIu
be supreme in the national field
The Shreveport cases arose out of the EFFORTS Oh
tbe Texas Railroad Commission TO afford protec-
ton" to Texas jobbers in that part or the STATE
living between line drawn from Dallas to Houston
and the Louisiana border. The commission re-
oured the railroads under its jurisdiction TO charge
intrastate rates from Dallas and Houston TO points
I'm this territory lower than the interstate rates
from Shreveport, La, into the same territory Inc
Interstate Commerce Commission had held the H.
terstote rates 10 be reasonable and the Louisiana
Railroad Commission complained to the Interstate
Commerce Commission that the latter's regulation
of rates from Louisiana into Texas was being MADE
n farceaof by the sharp tactics of the Texas COM
mission.
The federal Interstate Commerce Commission
sided with Louisiana and the Court or commerce
sustained its finding Now the Supreme Court has
concurred in the opinion Of the commission ana Vi
the lower court. There could have been no posi-
BILE doubt in the public mind OF the outcome Oh
the Shreveport case had the opinion in the Mime
sofa rate cases not confused the situation little
In those cases the court seemed the face Of the
decision to 60 pretty far in the direction or preserV
ing state sovereignty in rate regulation. 1t over
ruled the Circuit Court and sustained the Mime
sofa Railroad Commission in fixing intrastate traffic
rates which Judge Sanborn had held to be In con-
Aict with the interstate rate fixing powers Of the
federal government.
Justice Hughes, who wrote that opinion also
hold that Minnesota had not transcribed the limits
Of its authority in fixing intrastate rates. and that
the alleged conflict between intrastate rates and
interstate rates was not definite enough. Yet ne
held that Congress had the power to provide
against even such an indefinite clash between inter
state and interstate rates by stripping the state of
all power whatever to legslate whenever there was
an interblending Of across-state lines and local
business.
Congress may not 60 far that for some
time to come Yet it is evident that there Is no
room for the attempted Western revival of state
rights as applicable to railroad regulation. We
have long outgrown the possibility Of an effective
regulation of railroad rates by the separate action
Of forty-esht separate states. Nearly all com
merce by railroad has become affected with an In
terstate character and should fall more and more
completely under the federal regulation. Every
Supreme Court decision and every extension by
Congress Of the Interstate Commerce act is likely
10 blot out state lines and more and TO lead to
adjustments less favorable to the rights of the state
and more favorable to the rights Of the nation