Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-03-01
STATE RAILWAY
COMMISSION


THE ruling Of the supreme court
Of the United States in the
appeal of the state railway COM
mission Of Wisconsin and Montana
against the decision of the inter
state commerce commission raising
railroad passenger rates above the
maximum fixed by statutory law IN
these states is knockout blow tor
state authority over railroad rates.
AS Mr.. Toomey says. "all rights OF
the states to fix rates where the
interstate commerce commission
assumes jurisdiction is lost" "
course by a parity of reasoning to
that used by the supreme court the
interstate commerce commission
may also fix freight rates regard
less Of what the local state COM
missions may say about it. Indeed
we think a decision to that effect
was made more than year ago
when the interstate commerce
commission set aside some state
rate in the south on the allegation
that it was 50 low as to act as an
interference with interstate rates
on another road.
In the present case the state OF
Montana by legislative enactment
fixed the maximum passenger fare
between Montana points at three
cents per mile. The interstate
commerce commission ordered the
railroads to make a charge OF 80
cents per mile in spite Of the state
law which limited it to three cents.
This brought the issue OF state
rights over railroad rates up di-
rectly, for the three cent rate was
not due to the action of the Mon
tana state railway commission. It
was due to the action of the SOW
ereign state through its powers OF
legislation. The supreme court
holds that the sovereignty OF the
state of Montana must take a back
seat when it conflicts with the
Judgment of a federal board ap-
pointed by the president of the
United States SO far as passenger
rates are concerned, even between
points within the state.
BY this decision another long
step is taken by the federal courts
in wiping out state sovereignty and
vesting it in the federal sovereign
ty. The process has been going on
for a century, but much more rap
idly in the last half century! The
powers and the sovereignty OF the
federal government was originally
obtained by grants Of the states
which Invested themselves of GER
tain of their attributes Of sover-
eighty and vested them in the fed
eral government as their own free
and voluntary act. It has long been
a fundamental principle of law that
the federal government has no SOW
ereign powers except such as were
originally in the possession OF the
several states and granted by them
to the government. Our national
supreme court has often laid down
this principle in words, holding
that the sovereignty of the states
was the great reservoir OF @sover-
eign power, out Of which by their
grace the federal government was
invested with sovereign powers OF
which they had first Invested them.
selves. But while they held to that
doctrine in words, and still do
their acts seem to have been along
quite a contrary line to their words
BY judicial interpretations Of the
meaning of state grants to the fed
eral government of their sovereign
powers, the federal courts have ir
the course of years added more
power to the federal government
than the states ever dreamed they
were giving in those grants. The
powers Of the federal government
today are composed Of at least SC
per cent court made additions to
those granted by the state. and
state rights and state sovereignty
have been greatly weakened and ir
fact almost destroyed.
We are not prepared to say that
this is bad thing, or one to re.
gret. The reason for state rights
has largely passed away with the