El Nuevo mexicano., 1919-05-15

THE members Of the state corpora
ton commission expressed intense in
terest In a report received today from
Charles d. EImduist, general solicitor
Of the National Association Of Rail
way and Utilities commissioners. re-
gnrding the argument on the railroad
and telephone rate cases before the
II. S. supreme court. The commission
asked that the report be given wide
publication.
The question that the public ap-
pears to be interested in at this time
is whether these higher rates win be
maintained by the railroads and BY
the telephone companies after they
are returned to private ownership, an
attorney declared today. The question
whether the government was author
lied by congress TO increase the rates
intrastate has been brought up In
various state courts and will, perhaps,
be determined BY the y. s. supreme
court before many weeks District
Judge Holloman In Santa Re refused
to restrain the telephone company
from putting into effect Mr. Burleson's
increased rate order which has al
ready been felt on the bills submitted
for phones May /, but the Judge has
set June 2 as the date when the tele-
phone company may be called upon
to show cause why a restraining order
should not be given. It is believed by
June l the peace terms win be signed
and that congress may pass legisia-
ton withdrawing certain powers con-
'ferred as war measures.
In the report OF Mr.. ElmQuist it is
stated that Mr.. Justice McKenna, o.
the U. s. Supreme court. at the recent
hearing asked repeatedly what rate
making had to do with the operation
of the wires for wal purposes. Mr..
Elmquist's report follows:
National Association OF Railway
and Utilities Commissioners. 724
Eighteenth street, N, W. Washington,
ID. c. May z 1919.
TO all State Commissions.
The arguments in the railroad and
telephone cases were concluded Tues
day afternoon. May 6, at four o'clock.
The North Dakota railroad Ease was
first submitted. Judge Payne, gener-
al counsel for the railroad administra-
tion, and Charles Donnelly, formerly
general counsel for the Northern Pa
cific railroad but now with the admin
istration, presented the argument for
the government. Mr.. p. e. Packard,
assistant attorney general of North
Dakota, and w. ". Tanner, formerly
attorney general of the state of Wash
presented the arguments for
the state. Leave was granted to file
the combined brief OF the states in
both the railroad and telephone cases
1t appears that the state of North
Dakota had admitted in the lower
court that the president had the right
% make rates, subject to the proviso !
set forth in section Is, and Thus the 4
question OF the power OF congress to
delegate a legislative function to the
president was not argued by counsel
IN either side. The brief filed by
he states made no such concession
The argument in the railroad case
narrowed down to the construction to
be placed upon section is. Thus the
broad question Of the power of the (
president to make rates in times Of
was not argued in the railroad !
sase.. Counsel for the government {
.ook the position that the word !
rates in section 10 was a generic I
and embraced state and inter
state rates. <
Chief Justice White asked d ques- Z
ion to this effect: 'For over 35 years j
interstate rates have been regulated {
~ the Interstate Commerce Commits \
don and state rates by the state com
missions. Congress had knowledge of 4
hat fact. is It not reasonable to sup- /
,ose that congress In enacting the /
ederal control act would have used
he word Interstate IL it had intend {
ID to confine the presidents power
Il rate making to that class of COM (
nerce?' This question was asked be- y
ore the meaning Of section Is had I
cen fully developed.
The telephone eases were argued y
v Solicitor General King and Attorn- (
y Robbins, Of Chicago, for the gov q
rnment, and by VIM, Harold Hitch {
ock, assistant attorney general OF 4
Massachusetts,, Oliver e. Sweet, assis-
ant attorney general Of South Dakota, =
S. Jackson, assistant commerce '
ounsel of the Kansas commission, b
nd Raymond S. Prlitt, assistant at Q
general OF Illinois. G
The solicitor general commended that
he actions constituted d suit against y
ne government, which could not he q
lafntained without It's consent, that Q
ae resolution was broad enough to {
i've the postmaster general the right y
, make all rates, that the term rpo- i
ce reguiations's must be given its !
arrow construction, which would ex- d
Iude rate making and that no laws =
i the states at this time IAN apply
, a federally operated telephone or
sIegraph system. \
The representatives of the states
Maintained that the action was not
suit against the government, that
ongress could not arbitrarily delegate
ate making power to the president
rate making is a legislative
unction: that congress intended By
he proviso to preserve all OF the pc- 4
ce regulations Of the states, includ-
tx the control of rates.
A number OF questions were asked
! the court. For instance. Justice
icFeynolds wanted to know who Z
'ouId make the rates unless The post Y
laster general did; Justice McKenna
leauentiy asked what rate making 4
ad to do with the operation Of the 4