The Washington herald., 1914-06-10
SHREVEPORT DECISION
Federal Jurisdiction Supreme Owe,
All InterstAte Commerce.

In the Shreveport railroad rate cases,
decided yesterday the Supreme Court
reasserted unequivocally the principle
that IL any conflict arises between State
Jurisdiction and Federal Jurisdiction in
the regulation of railroad rates State
rights must give way to the rights Of
the nation The court has been working
steadily toward that conclusion. which
Is, indeed the only logical one. IL the
authority of the Federal government over
interstate commerce In all its forms is to-
be sustained and vindicated.
A house divided against itself cannot
stand; neither can a system OF commerce
regulation in which the separate States
may challenge and cripple the power Of
the central government. Justice Hughes
put the matter in a nutshell yesterday.
when ne said, in delivering the courts
opinion: Whenever the Interstate and
intrastate transactions OF carriers are 20
related that the government of the one
involves the control of the other. Con-
gress, and not the State. In entitled to
prescribe the final and dominant rule:
for otherwise Congress would be denied
the exercise of its constitutional au-.
thority and the State. and not the ma
ton. would be supreme in the national
field" .-e....
The Shreveport cases arose out Of the
to afford protection to Texas jobbers
in that part of the State lying between.
a line drawn from Dallas to Houston and
the Louisiana border. The commission
required the railroads under its jurisdic-
ton to charge intrastate rates from Dali
las and Houston to points In this terri
tory lower than the interstate rates from
Shreveport, La. into the same territory.
The Interstate Commerce Commission
AaI t,zII f,atA raNa To ha
sonable. and the Louisiana railroad COM
mission complained to the Interstats
Commerce Commission that the latter's
regulation of rates from eLoussiana into
Texas was being made a farce Of by the
sharp tactics of the Texas commission.
The Federal Interstate Commerce Com
mission sided with Louisiana and the
Court Of Commerce sustained its finding.
Now the Supreme Court has concurred
in the opinion of the commission and Of
the lower court There could have been
no possible doubt in the public mind of
the outcome of the Shreveport case had
the opinion in the Minnesota rate cases
not confused the situation a little. In
those cases the court seemed on the face
Of the decision TO go pretty far in the
direction Of preserving state sovereignty
in rate regulation. II overruled the Ci:-
cult Court and sustained the Minneapolis
Railroad Commission in fixing intrastare
traffic rates which Judge Sanborn had
held to be in conflict with the interstate
rate fixing powers of the Federal Gov
ernment
Justice Hughes. who wrote that opinion
also. held that Minnesota had not trans
cended the limits Of its authority in fix
ing intrastate rates. and that the al
legged conflict between intrastate rates
and interstate rates was not definite
enough. Yet he held that Congress had
the power to provide against even such
an indefinite clash between interstate
and intrastate rates by stripping the state
OF all power whatever to legisIate when
ever there was an interblending OF
across-state lines and local business.
Congress may not go so far as that
for some time to come Yet it is evident
that there is no room for the attempted
Western revival Of state rights as appli-
cable TO railroad regulation. We hsve
long outSrown the possibility of an ef-
fective regulation of railroad rates by
the separate action Of forty-eight sep
arate states. Nearly all commerce by
railroad has become affected with an
interstate character and should fall more
and more completely under the Federal
regulation. Every Supreme Court de-
cision and every extension by Congress
of the Interstate Commerce act is likely
to blot out state lines more and more
and to lead TO adjustments less favor
able 10 the rights of the states and mora
favorable 10 the rights Of the nation
New York Tribune.