The Washington herald., 1915-03-23
The Most Recent Rate Decisions,

In commenting the other day upon the recent
decisions OF the Supreme Court in the West Vir-
gInra and North Dakota coal rate cases, we based
our rcrnar Ks upon the summary of the decisions OF
tho court hastily prepared for the newspapers on
the day the decisions were handed down. But the
revised text of the full DECISIONS which has only
just been distributed make it evident that the pro-
nounccmcnt OF the court was even more important
TO the railroad and business interests OF the coun
try than supposed at the time the decisions
were first announced.
The North Dakota occupies the center of
the stage In 1907 the North Dakota legislature
fixed maximum of interstate rates, graduated &C
cordng to distance for the transportation of coal
i'll carload lots. The carriers refused to put the
rates into effect. under compulsion. The SUI
premc Court OF North Dakota ordered the rates
continued and this action the Supreme Court OF
the United States now revcrses. The ground
taken by the court is that while the presumption
always is that rates fixed by State for ntrastate
traffic are reasonable and just and that there is
wide field for Legislative discretion in the matter,
this Legislative power cannot be regarded
limited. The salient question is what constitutes
the proper limit OF State power in such matter.
The fundamental fact is of course, that according
to the Constitution the property of railway car
riers cannot be taken from them without just COM
pensation; but this still leaves it to be settled in
specific instances how the just profits and losses
OF the carriers on particular classes divisions OF
business their general business to
be determined.
This brought the Supreme Court squarely up
against the necessity OF passing upon various &C
counting questions that had been in dispute for
long time. They may be summed up in the one
inquiry: What constitutes cost The court lays
urIu b3t Irtc al
OUTLAWS which pertain to it must be considered. 1t
says: 1--WE find no basis for Distinguishing in this
respect between tout-oi- pocket costs or actual
expense and other OUTLAWS, which the less
actually made because they applicable to all
traffic instead OF being exclusively incurred for the
traffic in question" That is say. particular
cost must be considered TO include only the
actual expense directly concerned, but due share
OF the proporionatc costs which properly to
be ascribcd to the traffic There i disposition
in the decision OF the Supreme Court OF North !
Dakota, which was adverse to the carriers, to
that ii 4 road made handsomely upon
some articles, it could be forced stand loss |
upon others. The Supreme Court OF the nitcd
States holds that this idea cannot obtain Tor an |
instant.
But OF even greater importance is the ruling OF
hy c,",: that State legislature has no right to
tx r&"ay rates Tor the purpose OF building up
I.u>in.,, III Il particular locality In the North !;
!l1I".a G. %, u l2nrG just being developed
in the H'2., AID jor the purpose OF helping this |
infant r"..u~,i! Tic legislature Was anxious to |
make jhc railroads carry coal al low rate which
A. tic evidence rrolcd-WaS too low rate to he !
roftabic. The Supreme Court say, fatty that :
State can impose !, rate that is less than com
icr>atory in order to help local business. Cities
nor counties nor any localities whatever Can be