The New York herald., 1922-02-28
STATE FARES FIXED
BY L.C.C.ARE UPHELD
Supreme Court Finds Ac-
tion Legal to Guard In
terstate Commerce.
N. Y. LOSES IT'S PLEA
Incidental Regulation Not
Invasion of Rights,
Says Decision.
-
SUFFRAGE is SUSTAINED
Constitutionality of 10Th
Amendment Is Decided by
Unanimous Opinion.
SUFFRAGE is SUSTAINED

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2T.--Declaring
that commerce is a unit and does not
regard State lines" the Supreme Court
to-day, through Chief Justice Taft
and without dissent. handed down a
decision upholding the authority Of
the Interstate Commerce Commission
under the transportation act of 1920
to fix State railroad passenger fare
when necessary to remove undue, un-
reasonable and unjust discrimination
against interstate commerce"
The court also sustained the con-
stitutionality of the women's suffrage,
or nineteenth, amendment in q unani-
nous decision rendered by Justice
Brandeis.
In the rate decision two cases were
passed on. One was brought by the
Railroad Commission of Wisconsin and
others against the Chicago. Burlington
ana Quincy Railroad. seeking An injunc-
tion TO prevent the railroads of the Sta te
from putting into effect on State pas
senger traffic the rate of S.e cents per
nile allowed by the Government on in
terstate travel.
The other was brought by the state
or New York against the Federal Gov
crnment, the Interstate Commerce Com
mission and certain railroads OF that
state OH the ground that the g cent fare
fixed by the Public Utility Commission
produced reasonable returns to the rail-
roads upon their State traffic. In both
States freight rates had been advanced
T. the interstate level without objection
from the States.
"CongI ess In its control of its Inter-
state commerce system is seeking In the
transportation act to make the system
adequate to the needs OF the country by
securing for IL n reasonable compen-
satory return for all the work IL does
the Chief Justice stated in the opinion
THE States are seeking to use that same
system for intrastate traffic. That en-
tails large duties and expenditures on
the interstate commerce system which
may burden IL unless compensation IS
received for the interstate business.
Congress as the dominant controller OF
Interstate commerce may therefore re-
strain undue limitation OF the earning
power OF the interstate commerce sys-
tenn in doing State work. It
can impose any reasonable condition on
& States use OF interstate carriers for
intrastate commerce II deems necessary
or desirable. This is because OF the
supremacy of the national power In this
field"
Referring 20 the suggestion that the
conclusion OF the court would give the
Interstate Commerce Commission uni
fiod control of interstate and intrastate
commerce." the court declared that such
control was unified only to the extent
OF maintaining efficient regulation of in
terstate commerce under the paramount
power of Congress-" The decision of
the court docs not involve general regu-
lation of intrastate commerce" IL added.
Discussing the possible effect of
blanket increases In rates in particular
localities. thereby discouraging patron
age and decreasing earnings, Chief JUS
tice Taft asserted that should such re-
suits follow. the Interstate Commerce
Commission would be available for ap-
propriate action.
The court declared there was mo
room for discussion" on the question of
the constitutionaiity OF the transporta-
ton act, stating that IL had no doubt
in the cases.
While interstate and intrastate COM
rnerce are ordinarily subjected to regu-
lation by different sovereignties," the
court explained, yet when they are SO
mingled together that the supreme au-
NO'-s
plete effective control over interstate
commerce without incidental regulation
OF intra state commerce. such Incidental
regulation is not an invasion OF state
authority"
Two Questions Presented.
The court stated the cases presented
two questions. one as 10 whether intra-
state passenger fares work undue preju-
dice against persons in interstate COM
nsrce. such as TO Justify n horizontal
incfaase OF them. It announced Il could
not sustain "the sweep OF the comrnis-
sion's order "on the showing of dis
examinations against persons or places
alone"
IL was in disposing OF The second
question as TO whether state fares In the
two cases were undue determinations
against interstate commerce as n whole,
which the commission is bound by duty
TO remove, that che court made its find
ings.
The transportation act. the court
stated, authorized the commission for
the first time go deal directly With In
trastnte rates where they are unduly