The Birmingham age-herald., 1923-06-12
HIGH COURT. DEALS STATES
 SEVERE BLOW
Cannot Prohibit Or Regulate Exportation Of Natural Pro- auctions In Interstate Con- merce, Decides Court
 RULING OF MAJORITY IS CRITICISED BY OTHERS Far Reaching Decision Comes In Efforts Of West Virginia To Regulate Flow Of Its Nat uraI Gas To Other States

WASHINGTON June 11-A state cannot prohibit or regulate the ex- portation of it's natural productions in interstate commerce, the supreme court held today in cases brought by the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania to enjoin West Virginia from regu- lating the flow of it's natural gas across state lines.
 The decision brought vigorous dis sents from Justices Holmes, McRey- holds and Brandeis. each of whom criticised the ruling of the majority
 The courts opinion was delivered by Justice Vandeventer, who em- phasized the importance of the prin- ciples 1t established. As described d by him, the decision means that in the matter of interstate commerce we are a single nation-one and the same people"
 Regulation of Commerce.
 All the states, he said, have assent ed under the constitution to com hitting to Congress the power to regulate such commerce. thus inn plying that the states were forbid den to do anything that would have such regulatory effect.
 The purpose" Justice Vandeven- ter said. lis to protect commercial intercourse form invdious restraints. to prevent interference through con Ilictlng or hostile state laws. and to insure uniformity in regulation.
 No state, whether one where gas IS produced CT where it is sold, can by law. the majority declared, pre- vent. obstruct or burden it's trans mission. The West Virginia law. in the courts opinion, proposed such a restriction.
 It's provisions and the conditions whlch must surround its operations are such,' Justice Vandeventer de- clared. that 1, necessarily and di- rectiy will compel the diversion to local consumers of a large and in ereasing part of the gas heretofore pno now going to consumers In the complainant states and therefore will work serious interference with that commerce"
 West vireinia's Contention.
 Referring to the contention of West Virginia that the suits had been prematurely brought by an act by It's commission to restrict the "quan- tlty of natural gas transported to Chlo and Pennsylvania and the other states" Justice Vandeventer said:
 One does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury eo ODtaln preventive rellef. If the Injury Is certainly impending that is enough"
 In addition to holding that the proceedings had been properly insti- tuted, the court also held that the two states had the right to bring them not only as proprietors of pub lie institutions and schools whose supply of gas from the West Vir- ginia fields was threatened, but also as the representatives of the con suming. public. whose supply will be similarly affected"
 Justices Holmes and Brandeis could not agree with the majority that natural gas had become a part of interstate commerce at the time West Virginia proposed to ex- ercise control over 1t. They insisted that the states and people of Ohio and Pennsylvania had other means at law available to protect whatever rights they had to gas supplies from West Virginia.
 Judge McReynolds took the view that the cases did not present adju- dicable questions. and insisted that the court should have dismissed them for want of Jurisdiction.