The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-11-11
RAJ MUST EXPLAIN
POLITICAL EXPENSES
Supreme Court Sustains Commerce
Board In Louisville and Nash
Vile Hearing.
SWEEPING POWERS DEFINED.
Separation of whites and Negroes by
Law Unconstitutional $500 Other De-
cisions.

washington. Nov. 10.---The supreme
court made quick work of the case
OF Milton II. Smith, presiden. of the
Louisville and Nashville Railroad
company, and other officials OF that
corporation, in deciding that they
must answer questions put TO them
by the interstate commerce commas
sion In regard to the use g" funds OF
the railroad company for political pur-
poses.
The case arose under the investiga-
ton ordered by the United States seTi-
ate In November, 1913, into the affairs
of the Louisville and Nashville system.
The president and various officials OF
the company refused to tell what they
did with amounts of money taken
from operating expenses or construc-
ton funds for use for political pur-
poses with the legislators of Kentucky,
Alabama and Tennessee.
This occurred in hearing before
the interstate commerce commission
in Washington IN May. 1917. Access
to the books or records OF the various
corpor ations to learn how the money
was spent or where it came from was
denied examiners for the commission.
In phrasing the de ctston in the case
Justice McKenna said 1t was perfectly
clear that the power to gst the answers
from the witnesses was Incident to the
powers Of tile commission generally as
to carriers and admitted of no discus
sion whatever. President Smith had
made his defenss on the ground that
there could be no relation between the
power OF the interstate commerce
commission TO regulate railroad rates
and the expenses OF carriers for po-
liticai purposes.
The interstate. commerce act con-
fers upon the commission powers OF
investigation in very broad language,
and this court has refused by con-
struction to limit II so far as the bust
ness OF the carriers IL concerned and
their relation TO the public" Justice
McKenna said. And It would seem
TO be necessary deduction from the
cases that the investigating and su-
pervising powers OF the commission
extend TO ell of the activities of the
carriers and to all sums expended by
them which would affect in any way
their benefit or burden as agents OF
the public
1t ii be grasped thoroughly and
kept in attention that they are pub
lie agents. we have at least the prin-
ciple which would deter mine judg-
rnent in particular instances OF regu-
latiou or investigation, and IL In not
IaF rom Fue--t may De II IN en-
tirely true, as said by the commits
sion-that there can be nothing prt-
waite or confidential in the activities
and expenditures Of carrier engaged
In interstate commerce.s i.
We are not dispoecd 10 say that q
carrier may not attempt to mold or
eniighten public opinion. but we are
quite clear that its conduct and the
expenditures OF its funds are open to
inquiry. IL II may not rest Inactive
and suffer injustice. IT may not, on
the other hand. use its funds and It's
power in opposition 10 the policies of
government. Beyond this generally
II Is not necessary to GO.
The questions In. the case are not
of broad extent They are quite spe-
cial. and we regard them as but in
oident to the amount OF sxpen ditures
and TO the manner Of their charge on
the books OF the companies This Ia
within the power Of the commission .
The decision is TIE frs. definition OF
the vide powers conferred s. on She
commission by congress In 1910.
which the railroads have always de-
MED.