Show RAILROADS PLACED BEYOND POWER VER OF STATES BY HUGHES HUGHES' DECISiONS THEY I L II LIKE Lu HIM DECLARES BASIL MANLY By BASIL M. M MANLY Noted Economic and Political Expert for The Telegram This is the last in Manly's series of articles breaking the the silence Hughes In these articles Manly by quoting verbatim fromI from of Silent bare the tha th actuating court decisions of Hughes lays I speeches and ancl supreme principles nci by which the mind of Charles E. E Hughes operates Editor principles pies Charles E E. Hughes' Hughes decisions as supreme court Justice an and ana 1 acts as NewYork NewYork New NewYork railroads' railroads support for president I entitle him to the York governor As governor lie vetoed the cent 2 fare and full crew bills bilis he has concurred in decisions that As justice 1 State and nation can exercise no control over railroads except in the narrow field of transportation cannot recover damages when their businesses 2 Private shippers are ruined by illegal rebates 3 3 Congress and the federal courts c can n. n wipe ipe out state railway laws laws nl and commissions that compel rate reductions rates include in their 4 Railroads in determining reasonable can I valuation land given by the people to them j The first decision referred to was in the case of the Great Northern railroad railroad vs VB the International International International Inter Inter- vs s. Minnesota the second that of the Pennsylvania national Coal company Hughes' Hughes greatest service to the railroads was performed however when he wrote the decision in the Minnesota rate case The people apparently got the DECISION but the corporation got the LAW This case came from the lower federal courts court courts where Judge Sanborn was handed down a decision that was denounced by resolution in the governors governors' conference at Lake Mohonk where a special committee of governors was created to notify the supreme court that If the Sanborn decision was sustained it would be resisted by the states With this ominous threat of organized resistance tho the case came to Hughes who had been selected to write the decision I Justice Hughes gave every appearance of reversing the Sanborn decision while in reality he sustained Judge Sanborn on every point of law for which the railroads were seriously contending He ruled that the main principles upon which the Sanborn decision was based were right but that In the Minnesota l cases the principle had been too narrowly applied Thus it was ruled that the Sanborn decision was right in holding THE COURTS COULD ANNUL RATES FIXED BY THE STATE if they were unreasonably low but that in the particular cases before the court the rates rates' were in only one out of the three roads affected Even in the case of ot the road for which the rates were held the net earnings were yielding 35 per cent on the enormously inflated valuation allowed by Judge Sanborn In fixing the basis of valuation used In determining whether or not the rates were reasonable Judge Sanborn had held that in valuing the railroads railroad's real estate a large part of ot which had been given to the road by the federal government or bought for a song forty years ago the road Was entitled not only to put it in for WHAT IT WOULD COST TO ACQUIRE THE LAND TODAY in the heart hear of cities and thickly populated districts but also to MULTIPLY THAT rIIA T VALUE BY DY TWO on account of the special purpose for which it was to tobe tobe be used As a result the total valuation of the roads allowed by Judge Sanborn was I 56 66 per cent GREATER GREAlER THAN THEIR TOTAL CAPITALIZATION which included millions of dollars of or watered stock THIS WAS TOO RA RAW FOR HUGHES so he held that while the railroad was as entitled to charge up the theoretical cost of acquiring its Us right of or way at present present although although it may not have cost one-hundredth one of or that amount the amount the corporation was not entitled to an any fancy multiplication stunts But the REAL service of Hughes Bugles lay In the doctrine he handed down Inthis in inthis inthis this case that the paramount authority of congress enables it to Intervene at I its discretion for the complete and effective government of that which has I been to its care interstate commerce and ancl for that purpose and to I that extent in response to a conviction of ot national needs congress may displace 11 local laws by substituting laws of its own rIn t r tIn In plain lan language congress or the federal courts can wipe out the whole body of state railroad laws and regulations on on the basis it is in response to national need I This doctrine forms the basis of the Republican party's platform promise to wipe out state railroad commissions Why do the railroads want to wipe out the state commissions and center all authority in the interstate commerce commission The state commissions from from tho the beginning have attempted to lower freight and nd passenger rates Their efforts have been largely annulled by tho the courts In such decson decisions S' S n ao as those f handed down dow by Hughes in the North Dakota coal and West VI Virginia cent 2 fare but case such litigation is expensive and keeps the people stirred up The interstate commerce commission on the the theother other hand has saved the roads hundreds of millions by abolishing free passes and reb rebates tes and in the past a a year two o years has Permitted the roads to INCREASE RATES RATE about |