The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1914-06-13
llll0iD MASTER FOUND.
lNTERSTATE COMMERCE. COM.
lnssION NAY REDUCE RATES
SAYS SUPREME COURT,

aay Ahke Changes, n Rates Are
DasrsAninatory to Commerce -
Coagre0 Has Power % Control In.
terssnte Charges-Not Hound % Re-
ance Rates Below Proper stand
~ fsT RoSds and Public.
Washi nGton. June g. long step
towards placing railroads under lone
master anstead Of many" was taken
today by the United States supreme
court In upholding the power Of the
hsterstate commerce commission to
strike d,wn state rates that discrimi-
nate asainst interstate commerce. In
substance the court said that the MIN
nssota and other recent State rate
casoo In which the railroads lost might
have been decided otherwise had the
read gone to the commission for re
lttf instead OF the courts.
The decision was announced by
justice Hughes. Justices PitAey and
Lurton dissenting. The case arose
out % complaint by Shreveport (Lou-
isaAna) merchants that the Texas rail-
rod commission had shut them out
- an Texas business by compelling
The railroads to reduce Texas statU
rates far below what the Interstate
cpyomesce commission allowed the
railroads running from Shreveport to
Tsxas citiss TO charge.
The court first decided that the con-
grsss had power to control interstate
charges over on interstate carrier to
shs sxtsnt necessary to prevent In
furious Determinations against inter-
stats trafhc. and then held that con-
grtsu had conferred this power upon
the intsrstats Commerce commls-
sjon.
The fact that carriers are instru-
nsnts Of intrastate commerce al we'll
a of interstate commerce" said Jus
tics Hughes. docs not derogate from
The complete and paramount author
NY Of congress over tho latter or pre-
cluds the federal power from being
sxsrtsd TO prevent tho intrastate op-
ssstions Of such carriers from being
mace . means Of injury to that which
has bssn confded to federal care.
Wherever the interstate and intra-
Sonts transactions Of carriers are no
related that the government Of the
enc invokss the contoi Of the other.
q - congress and not the state that
= entitled to prescribe the finat and
eonfnans rule. for otherwise congress
would % denied the exercise Of its
constitutional authority and the State
not the nation. would be supreme
within tho national field."
. In removing Determinations agains,
Interstate commerce, the court held
congress was not bound to reduce the
intsrstate rates below what 1t may
essm to bs . proper standard to the
carrier and the public.
Otherwise" said the opinion. III
could prevent the injury to interstate
commerce only by sacrifice Of its
judgment ~ to interstate rates"
Justice Hughes. who wrote the
courts decision In the State rate cases
Of . year ago. pointed out that the
present cass did not conflict with those
oassa He said that. In the absence
Of . flnding by the commission of
unjust Determinations. intrastate
rates undoubtedly were left to be Ak
Cd by the carrier and subject to tho
authority OF tho States.
I'VE are not unmindful Of the
sravity Of the question that Ia pre-
ssutsd when state and federal views
e0n0ict." the opinion concluded. But
q was recognised at the beginning the
nation could not prosper II interstate
and foreign trade were governed by
many masters. and. where the in
forests Of the freedom Of interstate
commerce are involved. the Judgment
Of congress and Of the agencies 1t
lawfully establishes must control"
Members Of the interstate commits
sion regarded this case as one Of .he
most important In which the body
ever has been involved. The decision
was written by Secretary Lane before
hs left the commission to become q
member OF the presidents cabinet.