Show t HEPBURN RATE LAW I UPHELD BY COURT Commodities Clause of InterState Commerce Act of 1906 Approved Ap-proved by Supreme Judges JT While Law Is Held to be Constitutional Constitu-tional Court Does Not Concede the Contentions of the Government q Gov-ernment as to Its Scope l I41t J if i Washington That the commodities I commodi-ties clause of the Interstate commerce com-merce act of 1900 known as the Hep burn rate law is canstttulonal was In I effect declared on Monday May 3 I by the supreme court of the United States The decision was announced by Justice Whlto Tho court reversed and remanded tho decision of tho United States circuit court but tho only directions were to enforce and apply tile statute as It Is now construed con-strued Briefly summarized the decision of tho supremo court in tile commodities clauso cases holds the law to be constitutional con-stitutional but it does not concede tho contentions of the government as to its scope An especial exception was as to the ownership of stock in a different dif-ferent corporation which It was held did itot constitute such ownership as I would prohibit transportation under the terms bf Uio law It was also held that ownership of the commodity applied I ap-plied only to tho time of transportation transporta-tion If before transporting It Iho railroad company has In good faith I parted with a commodity It may carry h I it The principal point of the decision was in relation to tho railroads holding hold-ing the stock ctf subordinate companies com-panies and ba that important point tho finding was favorable to tho roads Justice Harlan dissented on the stock feature but otherwise the do clslon was unanimous + These cases had been decided by tho circuit court favorably to the railroads I rail-roads In that the clause of the Hep l burn rate law which prohibits Interstate 0 > Inter-state railroads from carryhig > conic modltles manufactured mined or produced pro-duced directly or Indirectly by tho roads was declared unconstitutional kt I The general impression had been that that decision would he affirmed In tho supremo court When therefore there-fore thero was a reversal Instead of f an affirmation the interest was much magnified |