The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1920-12-11

bitterness over period of three-quar-
ters Of a century.
When the supreme court rendered
the, Dred Scott decision it placed pro-
perty rights above human rights and
made a long, bloody war inexitable.
But that war did not settle tho ques-
ton. The railroads are going 10 tls,
snpreme court with a demand that taet
states be enjoined from interfering
with the, rates established by the In
terstate commerce commission. to 1he
end: that the guaranteed income as
sured them by the transportation bill
shall be certain and uninterrupted.
State Rights First.
Seventeen states have held to the
theory that they retain rights that the
!: FEDERAL government must respect. The
Interstate commerce commission holds
a contrary view and so do the mil
roads, The states. they argue, have No
rights that transcend tho rights az thu
railroads to collect the guarantee that
congress has given them.
In writing the railroad bill the cor
poratlon> attorneys aimed at centraliz-
alton Of regulatory power in Washing
ton. They preferred to deal with con.
gress which is less responsive to pub
nc Will than state legislatures. They
congnt to curtail the authority Of state
utility commissions, which are moro
closely watched and. therefore. less
likely to disregard the public welfare
"hen dealing with questions of rates
and railroad practices.
Courts Come Next
A majority Of the commemorative
nave accepted this position and have
approved the federal rates without
question. But a fighting minority IL
standing out for state rights. and thu
question must go to the courts for re-
view. what the final decision will be
IS not a subject for speculation. It
may be stated. however, that in recent
issues where property rights oonflicted
with human rights the decision has
invariably favored property.
Guarantee is Provided.
Inc position taken by the railroads
and the interstate commerce commits
sion sets at rest for all time the oues-
ton whether congress did or did not
intend to guarantee railroad dividends.
Those who advocated the transporta-
ton bill carefully explained to out
RACED constituencies during the re-
cent campaign that nothing could
have been farther from their thought
than to guarantee the railroads any-
thing. But the interstate commerce
com mission fnterprets the bfll ,as 4
mandate to provide revenue that will
permit the railroads to pay dividends.
and fhAA ro{1rno 1c Svao{o <S>~x
be satisfied with nothing less. State
rights or no state rights, they must
have their six per cent. Congress has
so declared and the courts must so
rule. ,-- .. -
In an order directed to the public
service commissions Of Illinois and
New York the commission declares
that the plain intent Of the act was
to guarantee certain return to the
railroads, and that If the several states
do not accept rates established this
result will be defeated. II, the courts
should respect the right Of the states
to interfere with this arrangement.
1t would be necessary for the inter-
state commerce commission to again
initiate and adjust rates that the total
yield would be sufficient to meet divi-
dend requirements.
No Solution.
It is important that these facts be
clearly established. for it is not con-
ceivable that the American people.
tolerant as they are. will complacently
accept q situation 30 outrageous in itss
application and 30 dangerous IN IT.
Continued o.. Pegs 1.0o.
81,