Arizona republican., 1920-04-18

made at a time when there was no federal body legally qualified to review them, were naturally projected on a higher scale than those which had been prescribed by the states | There being an express proviso in the act as passed in 1887. and as re- enacted in 1906, that it's provisions did not apply to the transportation of property wholly within a state, it is plain that congress then considered I that the right of a state to regulate l its intrastate commerce was as full and plenary as was congress- right to regulate interstate commerce.
 Although the carriers began to inn prove and prosper under the whole some influences of the new legislation they also began to chafe under the restraint of state regulation. The states prescribed rates which restrict ed the carriers to a reasonable rate of return on the propety devoted to the public use. The interstate commerce commission permitted them to charge
 the rates which they made themselves, provided no one complained; but if
 after hearing upon complaint, any such carrier made rate was found to
 be easonable, then the interstate
 
 the reasonable rate. After comparing the difference in the requirements it is not difficult to see why the carriers
 prefer federal to state regulation. In 1913 the railroad commission of Louisiana, in what is known as the Shreveport case, filed a complaint with the interstate commerce commission
 alleging that the commercial interests of Shreveport were being discriminat- ed against because the rates which applied from Shreveport to destina- tions in Texas were materially higher than the rates which applied from
 Houston, Dallas, Sherman and other
 jobbing and distributing points to the
 same destinations. The interstate
 commerce commission found: First, that the rates from Shreveport to
 Texas were reasonable in and of them selves and as compared with rates in
 other sections where the transporta- tion conditions were substantially sim liar; second, that a complete case of discrimination had been made out by the complaint, and; third. that the carriers respondent should remove the discrimination. leaving it to themselves to determine the means. The carriers being unwilling to reduce the inter- state rates and unable to increase the Texas state rates were impaled on both horns of the dilemma. They even tually got the case to the supreme court of the United States which de- cided that whenever an intrastate rate imposed an undue or an unjust burden upon interstate commerce the inter- state commerce commission had the | power to fix the rate which in it's opin- ion would remove the discrimination. | That certainly was awful blow to l states rights and states sovereignty l
 When the Arizona corporation con- 1 mission met for the first time it was 1 0nf f-r.ra f,y T. t~ x-s& ing no parallel in history. In many in- stances rates exceeding the bull-team | rates which applied over certain parts | of the old Santa Fe Trail were charged | for transportation between points | within the state. The entire class rate | structure had to be revised downward | and commodity rates, which would en- | able native industries and weak strug- 1 gling enterprises to obtain commer- ciai foothold, were established. It Is l needless to say that in this revision | the commission was actuated by de- | sire to promote the general welfare | rather than to inflict any hardship on | the carriers. An examination of the | financial condition of the carriers | operating in Arizona will bear mute | testimony to this facs.
 These rates, particularly those ap- i plying on lumber and mining timber | from our northern mills to the mining | districts reached by the lines of the | Southern Pacific, Fl Paso and South- | western and Arizona Eastern have | been the subject of the carriers an- on more than one occa- l sion.
 The quality of our native lumber is | such that so per cent of the output of 1 these northern mills must find a mar 1 ket within the state: and ii the state | made rates which have enabled them | to compete with Oregon pine and Cali 1 fornia redwood shipped through the | port of Los Ang are forced up to | the level of the carrier-made inter- state rates the mills will have to go | out Of business and the state will be | deprived of very valua ble asset. The l. same observation is equally true of our flour mill, livestock and creamery in- duStrieS.
 As the decisions of the supreme | court of the United states constitute the greater part of our federal law. I | do not understand why the principle which it relied upon in the deterrnirla- ton Of the Shreveport case should be in the transportation act as an amendment to the Act to Reg ulate Comerce, unless it was to enable the carriers to bring their complaints against state made rates before the commerce commission on the ground of discrimination and thereby avoid the technical rules of practice and procedure which would be involved in a case of confiscatiou brought in the federal courts.
 On the whole the transportation acf IS the greatest gift that congress could possibly bestow upon the carriers IT. hat