Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-04-23

Champions of States rights are par
ticularly pleased by the decision of the
Supreme Court refusing Federal inter-
vention in the New York City scent
fare controversy. The issue was taken
to the United States courts by the IN
terborough Transit Co. on the ground
that restrictions against a 7-cent sub
way fare are confiScatory in violation OF
the Federal Constitution.
MANY of the more important public
service cases have been taken direct
to the Federal courts by the companies,
says the Rochester Times-Unlon, "prln-
cipally on the ground that the valua-
tions assigned to their property have
been such as to make rates based on
them confiscatory. While the United
States Supreme Court has never ruled
that replacement cost is the sole con-
sideration in valuation, the tendency
of Federal decisions, especially in the
lower courts, has been to make this a
predominant factor. State court de-
cisions are likely to be in closer touch
with the policies of State regulatory
commissions. and to that extent make
the work of the commissions more eff
fective It is true that recourse may
still be had to the Federal courts but
the State court findings are likely to
carry weight, even when such an appeal
IS taken"
The Cleveland Plain Dealer holds
that "the decision of the Supreme Court
does not turn on the question of con-
fiscation, as was expected, but Is made
on the ground that the court has no
jurisdiction. 1t accordingly leaves the
fare issue where 1t was when first the
attempt was made to break the exist
ing contract. In due time it will prob
ably be taken back to the State courts
and threshed out again" Satirical ref
erence to the fare is made by the Chat
tanooga News, with the statement that
"the traction system continues to run
at a profit, because the millions con-
tinue to be contented with the wholly
inadequate accommodations given them
on the subways"; that "they are packed
like SardineS."
"The decision, while probably mere
postponement of New York's vexine
Transportation problem" in the opinion
of the Baltimore Sun, should be an
effective rebuke for interests which rush
into the Federal courts on specious
grounds when dubious of their prob
able success in the State tribunals. "
That paper also remarks as to the issue
presented that "the court rebuked the
companies claim that the scent rate
was confiscatory and their claim for
an per cent return upon the value
of the subways, which are the property
of the city"
Somewhat of victory for States
rights" is seen by the Buffalo Evening
News, which comments further: There
has been proposal in Congress for
legislation to prevent interference by
~ rrke ir1 1iffno finn offa0tinC
the relations between communities and
public utilities until after the State
courts have acted. Perhaps the de-
cision of the Supreme Court makes
such legislation unnecessary"
An Interpretation of the decision is
given by the Newark Evening News In
the statement: 1.-THE contest over the
fare rate will now return to the State
courts, where the city's transit commits
sion is seeking a determination of the
question whether, under State law and
CITY transit contracts, it has jurisdic-
ton to revise contractual rates of fare
The Supreme Court, however, has dis
posed of the question whether subway
fares are adequate, showing them to be
increasingly and enormously so when
separately considered and laying down
the dictum that they must be so con-
sidered."
Fort Worth acknowledgement, which
contends that "it should serve as a
nredicate for all future relations be-
tween public utility concerns. cities and
states. In its final analysis" continues
that paper, lit should concentrate on
the rights of cities to make and main
tain their own contracts, and States
should take regulatory powers over
them only to the city limits. The State
Supreme Court should be the highest
possible appeal"
aTo the layman the United States
Supreme Court has simply declared that
the city has the legal right 70 enter