Show WIN I VICTORY BEfORE i SUPREME COURT Commodities Clause Is De Declared Declared cared Constitutional but Scope Is Limited GOVERNMENT LOSES MOST OF ITS POINTS DECISION AFFECTS ALL OF THE ANTHRACITE COAL CAR CARRYING CARRYING CARRYING LINES 4 4 4 4 1 rg May S Within an hour hoar hoara 4 4 a t IM tl news of the supreme court 4 4 j v n r in ill regard rard to tG the Hepburn 4 f fin f in ru n s clause cla CIU was received herS here 4 4 i i t deal was wa consummated by byI v 4 I i i t Ih he h Gould interests win wilt engage 4 4 a al 31 I business in this t l district 4 4 r r r menU ments have been made al 4 4 r v n it is 18 said to produce between 4 i Ju i nd tons t to a YeAr ver The he 4 f 1 will be bs operated by b the Pitts P 4 4 f r s r Terminal cI Coal company compan and andL 4 t i L cal al aI will be WOld old through a New 4 y i n K c ern ernas 4 na as intimated that the decision 4 4 4 c i in an the termination of the thein 4 f in of the Western We tern Mary 4 f and alli other Gould roads roada and the 4 j i of ot the holding of the 4 4 i 11 i Kanawha system purchased 4 4 i v hy by h the Pennsylvania Haiti flat 4 m r Ohio and the New York Cen 4 4 railroad for about M HM M W 4 44 H 4 4 t f 4 t May ay SIt 3 It has bas been oil T i day das sine 3 a decision of the thein then in liI n States tates sn me court has ha been i with as p much ek ch Interest as was wai wasi waited i ted td today in the reversal of o the ther r J i Commodities clause de deaf af ft the anthracite s z i e f i cases ases had been n decided by the tM theu u fl urt favorably to th the railroads the clause of the Hepburn rate inh prohibit interstate railroads n arr ing commodities J mined or produced directly or in r f t ty Jy b hy by the roads was declared un uni i t T r general impression had bad been that Ia at af teased would be affirmed by the ther f r r ne ourt jurt When therefore there 4 i reversal rf instead of an affirms i t t th ih interest was wa much m ch magnified V i f again it was wu found that the re real real al was based on oi technical grounds i 1 i that hat I the effect was wag really favorable i t tik h u railroads sentiment took another j if r 1 ad it J those who bad been anxiously Iy the a r L Lp LT T p ii ision was announced by bv Jus Jun c White hitt hit who ho declined to give out mit r than a summary showing the net nett t c Of If f the courts courtl finding Because Beca BecaT i T n delay dewy in announcing Its It I luion it was generally supposed ed at a t I h court would be found to be divided lidded Only one disc en ting a 3 announced Justice Harlan Harian t 1 that he did not BOt follow the con M v ill in the point that the law does doest r cf t prohibit the railroad ra road ownership owner of ofin k h in Commodities t producing com corn cornI I Scope Is Limited z 1 I Justice Whites decision is isens ens did id not transcend its con eon connal connal nal authority m In enacting the theties j tiPs ties provision but it was held heldt IP t 1 1 KI construction con of the theL I L j n had been entirely too compre c As A construed by the court the thet theof Uj t I of the clause is III to prevent I being bel associated in inter Th 1 the t th ht commodities transported at atIf of If f transportation tran up the act only compels i i to to dissociate d themselves t products they carry and the c i I nt tit contention that the law Jaw ap apI l I Li it ownership of stock Mock and pro proS prof S f transportation of 1 1 Y because they have hare been pro proa i 1 a railroad company is unten f ct t of the decision is favorable I i reads and the government lost 4 a ally all fly all an points except in the tilt theof ii i 1 of If the principle involved In InU InG U G J that h a t congress cone bad not gone be authority m In enacting the law lawt lawr 1 t r the right to legislate legislateS S helleved that if so disposed cr Ight enlarge enlar and extend tend the ther theor or r th thi provision The decision i 1 the I he provision of the law ex 0 timber t i m ber tress from the operations opera of clause v x was wes used as a basis basil basist 1 t hy by the railroads on the law Jaw as astory astory tory but Justice White bite re reI I ept that view As Aa enacted i j not apply to the rn br and it is la of course e un nfl J y the decision Continued on Page 2 I RAILROADS WIN WINi i VICTORY BEFORE i SUPREME COURT I Continued from frem Page 1 I IThe The following is a summary of or the th opinion In the commodities cases L 1 The claim of or the government that the provision contained in the Hepburn act approved June 29 9 1906 commonly called cited the commodities clause claus prohibits a railroad company com pan from moving com coin commodities commodities in interstate commerce because the company has manufactured mined or produced them or owned them In whole or In part or has had an interest direct or indirect in them wholly Irre Irrespective Irrespective Irrespective of the relation or connection of ot the carrier with the commodities at the time of or the transportation Is 15 decided to be untenable It Is also decided that the provision of the commodities clause relating to interest direct or indirect does dOeR not embrace an Interest which a carrier may have ha e in a producing cor cot corporation corporation as the result of the ownership by the carrier of stock In such corpora corporation corporation corporation tion irrespective of the amount of o stock which the carrier may own on in such cor con corporation corporation I provided the corporation has bas been organized In good faith 2 Rejecting the construction placed by b the government upon the commodities ties clause it Is decided deeMed that that clause I when all its provisions are harmonious harmoniously ly Iy construed has hils solely for Cor Its object i to prevent carriers canners engaged in Interstate Commerce from being associated In In Interest Interest Interest terest with the transportation with the commodities transported and therefore the commodities clause lause only prohibits railroad companies engaged in inter interstate Interstate interstate state commerce from transporting such commerce commodities under the th fol following following following lowing and conditions Construction of Clause a at When hen the commodity has been manufactured mined or produced by b a railway company or under its authority and anSI a At it t the time of transportation the railway company has not in good faith before the act of transportation passed pas ed with Its Ms interest in such commodity fb Is when hEin the railway company owns the Ule commodity to be transported in whole or in part c when the railway company at the tInts tim of o the transportation tion has bas interest direct or indirect in a legal sense in the commodity which last tast provision does not apply to the com corn T manufactured mined produced O ned etc by b a corporation because a railway company is a stockholder In such corporation Such ownership of stock in a producing company compau by b a rail railway railway railway way company does not cause it as the theoner owner oner of the stock to have haYe a legal in interest Interest terest in the commodity manufactured etc eh by b the producing corporation 3 As AI thus construed the commodities ties clause is I a regulation of commerce I within the power of ot congress to enact The contentions elaborately argued for forthe forthe forthe the railroad companies that the clause if applied to preexisting rights will op operate operate erate crate to take property of railroad com corn companies pAnl and therefore e violate the due process clause of the fifth amendment were all based baaed on the assumption that the clause claUN prohibited and restricted In accordance with the construction which the Ule government gave that clause and for the purpose of enforcing enCoring which pro prohibitions prohibitions prohibitions these suits were brought A Ail As tin the lH construction the government p ed upon the act and seeks to en enforce enforce force is now held hekl to be unsound and anti as none of the contentions rolled relied upon are I applicable to the act as now construed because under such construction the lct act merely merel enforces a regulation of com corn commerce merce by which carriers are arc compelled to dissociate themselves from the pro 1110 products products ducts which hleb they the does not prohibit where the carry carr Is not asso associated elated with the commodity carried it follows that the contentions on the sub subject subject subject of the fifth amendment are with oue merit 4 The exemption e as to timber etc contained in the clause is not repugnant repugnant repugnant nant to the constitution 5 3 The provision adopted as to pen penalties penalties penalties is separated from the other othar pro provisions provisions visions of the act As no recovery recover of I penalties was prayed for Cor no issue con concerning conI concerning them is presented It I will be time enough to consider whether the right to recover penalties exists when an all attempt to 10 0 collect penalties is made 6 As s the construction now nosy given len lenthe the act differs so widely widel from the con construction conI construction which the government gave sac to I the act ad and which it was as the purpose of these suits to enforce It Is hi held bold that It Itis itis I is not necessary in reversing and re remanding I manding to direct the character of o de decrees decrees e crees cr which shall be b entered but simply to reverse and remand the case calie with directions to enforce and apply the thc stat statute statUte ute ut as at it is now construed 7 As the tb Delaware 1 Hudson com coin company pasty pany is engaged d as a common lommon carrier by rail in the transportation of ot coal In the channels of ot interstate commerce It IB Is a railroad company within the pur pun viey of the commodities clause claue and Is subject t to the provisions of that clause as they are now construed |