Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1917-10-03
HIGHEST COURT WILL
PASS ON STATE RATES


Washington Illinois two-cent
/ passenger rate law case now before
the United States supreme court grew
out of an attempt by railroads TO ap~
ply to commerce wholly within that
state rate of "a cents mile liked by
fthe interstate commerce commission
for commerce between interior Illinois
points and St Louis. Mo. and keokuk,
Iowa The Illinois public utilities
commission refused to recognize the
rate and ordered it suspended, threat
enIng with prosecution any railroad
that attempted 10 enforce 1t
The two-cent rate law went into ef-
feet July I, 1907. when fares from IIIi-
noIs points TO ST Louis which had
been on a three-cent basis. were re
ducad to two cents q mile plus bridge
tolls. This rate remained in effect I'M
til Dec /. 1874. when Illinois carriers
advanced their passenger rates be-
tween ST. Louis and Illinois points 20
21a cents mile buE left the rates be
tween points inside the state TN
changed The year following the in
Eerstate commerce commission in the
western passenger fares case found
that "a rate OF 80 cents q mile for IN
terstaEe fares on certain Illinois rail-
roads was fair and that a similar rate
4As-1f-aaE-H- -As+++Nfi- tt-a=A -at-a+t
sin and other states i'm that section of
the country.
Oh June IA. 1918. the Business Mems
League OF ST. Louis mplained 10 the
Interstate commerce commission that
the rates then i'm effect between Hi
uojs towns and ST. Louis were d5scrim-
inatory- The keokuk Industrial ass0-
citation OF I<eokuk. Iowa. interviewed,
declaring that any change made tn the
rates etfectinE St. Louis also he made
regarding that city. In a report made
the following month the commission
found that the rates then charged be-
tween the two Missouri and Iowa cities
and Illinois were fair and reasonable,
but found that the maintenance Of low
err passenger rates from Chicago TO
Illinois points resulted in undue pref
ereuce and advantages in favor Of Chi
cago and those points and ordered the
establishment by Oct. is. 1916. of pas
senger rates not in excess Of - cents
mile so all discrimination would be
removed
In a supplementary report the com
mission instructed carriers 80 UreDare
schedules OF rates between Illinois
points and ST. Louis and &eokuk On
the same basis as those charged be-
tween Chicago and other Illinois
points. As a result of that order the
railroads filed with the interstate com
merce commission and the Illinois
public utilities commission tariffs on
basis OF Pa cents Il mile for the
transportation ot intrastate and inter
state passengers in Illinois. Those
rates We're to have become effective
on Jan i, 1917
Because of threats made by Illinois
authorities to institute legal proceed
81 no +HH 49,
on Nov 2U, 1915, filed suits against The
utilities commission. the attorney gen
eraI and he states attorneys for the
counties through which the railroads
run asking that the commission be en-
joined from sUspeEdiug the % cent
rate and the others be restrained from
bringing any suits against the rail
roads for putting into effect the rate
liked by the commission. The railroads
charged that the state two-Cent fare
law was void in that it couaicte8 with
the orders of the Interstate commerce
commission and the commerce clause
or the constitution.
The state authorities in their an
swer alleged that the federal commits /
sion orders were SO vague, indefinite /
ana general IN their terms that en-
torcement would be impossible should /
the carriers desire TO resist but added /
that the railroads had attempted To /
apply the order to all iutrastate rates. 4
in Illinois as well as to rates not in /
Guided ~ the reports and order of the
commission IT was further charged /
that the commission had no power eto /
make an order which in the eufse ~ I
removing discrimination between +
these specified localities viii Operate /
10 strike down ali intrastate regula- F
ions in Illinois" Denial that the ax- f
listing tariffs had resulted in any nm
reasonable and undue discrimination" /
was also made. Motions for a tenn
porary injunction were denied and
when the case came up for final hear