New-York tribune., 1916-07-04
Candidate Advocates Cen.
trail Regulation of Rail-
roads, Lawyers Declare.
RATE CASE DECISION
SHOWS STRONG STAND
Attorneys Say Vigorous Sen.
tences of Jurist Prove He
Backs Party's Plank.
From ne Trtou1s Bur-su-I

! kFlOm Inc bAlrtNl
Washington, July 8. 49, Charles z.
] Hughes is strongly in favor Of placing
! all railroad regulation under exclusive
Federal control. Lawyers around the
Supreme Court to-day pointed out tina.
the plank in the Republican platform,
adopted last month at Chicago, relating
20 this topic nigh: well have been writ
ten by the then justice himself
The Republican plank states:
Interstate and intrastate transports.
tion have become so interviewer tina.
the attempt TO apply two and often
several sets Of laws to its regulation
has produced conflicts of authority, en-.
barrsssment in operation and inconven.
ience and expense 20 the public. Tbs
entire transportation system o, the
country has become essentially ns.
tional. We therefore favor such action
by legislation or, i: necessary, through
an amendment 70 the Constitution o.
the United States as will result in plsc.
ing 1t under exclusive Federal control
Point to Rate Case Decision.
This idea first was pointedly Sc.
forth, lawyers here said, in the famous
Minnesota rate case decision OF the
Supreme Court, which was written by
Mr. Hughes The plank. they pointed
out, could not have been written 80 &.
the candidate" better, even II the plat
form committee had known who vas
going 70 be nominated when the plank
was framed.
Following are few sentences from
the pen Of Justice Hughes in that rate
decision. which involved the right Of
state TO regulate intrastate railroad
passenger rates:
The principle which determines this
classification unGerlies the doctrins
that the states cannot under any guiss
impose direct burdens upon interstate
commerce. For this is but 20 hold ths.
the states are not permitted directly 20
regulate or restrain that which from It's
nature should be under the control oi
AitV OlAU aNNlAOlAIy anu Ut AAfF sANiA
restriction save as IL is governed in the
manner that the national legislature
constitutionally ordains."
Congress may lawfully exercise, and
has long exercised exclusive power %
regulate navigation and commerce by
water, even navigation and commerce
wholly local within state. Such action
implies no direct power 70 invade the
state, but is necessarily incidental %
the power expressly granted 10 Con-
gress to regulate commerce amQlg the
states" -"
The power Of Congress over land
commerce Is identical with, and as COM
plete as, its control over water COM
.serce"
Federal Power Hits Interference
at appears, therefore, 10 be a purs
question Of fact whether the state rates
do destroy, impede or directly operate
upon interstate commerce and inter-
state rates. IL they do the Federal
power is shown to be ample TO prohio.
such interference"
The argument that IL the state
rates are reasonable IN and of them
selves they cannot be objected 70, and
therefore the whole inquiry is as 20
their reasonableness, is fallacious. The
court determines only whether rates
are conhscatory and cannot entertain
the broader question of their reason
ableness; nor can this be determined
by any mathematical formula. Public
policy of the nation may be 70 permi.
carriers large return. Public policy
of state may be TO permit but a small
one. In such conflict national Au-
thority controls
State power and state action must
give way to whatever extent is neces.
sary to complete an efficient national
control over the subjects committed TO
that control by the Constitution"
The hazards affecting railroad prop.
erty inhere in the fact that while ins
measure such property performs s
function OF the state there is no guar
antee 70 its owners against loss"