The Meeker herald., 1922-03-11
COURT uPhoLDS
TARIFF CONTROL
iNrERsrATE soARo CAN REou.
LATg RAILROAD RATA
WITHIN TERRITORY.
THE STATES LOSE FIGHT
DECISION MADE UNDER TRANS.
PoRTATioN ACT PAssEo
IN 1890.

NWWWSu NNosveUS U4ss4 sNsS SsvsMsS q
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. that com.
merce II a unit md doeA not regard
state lines," the Supreme Court.
through Chief Justice Taft and with
out dissent, handed down decision
unfolding the authority Of the Inter
state Commerce Commission under the
transportation act Of 1890 to fix state
railroad passenger fares when neces.
sary to reniOve ''undue, unreasonable
and unjust discrimination against In.
terstatc commerce"
Two cases were presented to tho
court. One WIS brought by the rail-
road commission Of Wisconsin Hnd 9th.
ers against the Chicago. burlington 4
Quincy railroad. seeking an injunction
to prevent the roads Of the state from
putting into effect on state passenger
trnffic the rate of SO cents per mile
allowed by the government ON inter
state travel.
The other was brought Ivy the state
Of New York against the federal gov
eminent, the Interstate Commerce
Commission and certain railroads Of
that state. on the ground that the
Scent fare fixed BY the public utility
commission produced reasonable re-
turns to the railroads upon their state
traffic. In both states freight rates
had been advanced to the interstate
level without objection from the states.
Congress In Its control Of its inter.
state commerce system 10 seeliag In
the transportation act to make hys-
TEN adequate to the needs OF tile coun-
try BY securing for II q reasonable
compensatory return for all the work
|lt does" the chief justice stated in the
opinion. 1.-THE states are seeking to
use that same system for intrastate
traffic. That entails large duties and
expenditures on the Interstate com.
merce system. which may burden 1t
unless compensation IL received for
the intrastate business reasonably
|proportionate 10 that for the Interstate
business. Congress, a. the doInInan!
controller Of Interstate commerce.
may, therefore, restrain undue llmitN.
tion Of the earning power Of the Inter.
state commerce system In doing stnte
work.
ut can impose any Reasonable con.
dition on 4 state's use Of Interstate
carriers for intrastate commerce 1t
deems necessary or desirable. This
is because Of the supremacy OF the
national power In this field"
Referring to the question that the
conclusion OF the court would give the
Interstate Commerce Commission .'uni-
fled control OF Interstate and Intra-
state commerce." the court declared
that such control was unified only to
the. .'extent Of maintaining efficient
regulation of Interstate commerce un-
der the paramount power Of Con-
gress." The decision of the court
"does not involve general regulation Of
Intrastate commerce." 1t added.
1t suggested TINT "the action Of the
Interstate Commerce Commission In
this regnrh should he directed to sub
stantial disparity which operates as q
real discrimination against. and OBJ
structIon to, Interstate commerce. and
must leave appropriate discretion to
the state authorities to deal with inter-
state rates as between themselves on
the general level which the Interstate
Commerce COmmisslon has found to
be fair to interstate commerce"