Show INT AIN A IN RATE ATE CASE I OR IT-OR OR US UI Wins Inter- Inter Decision Su- Su reme Cou Court t Upsets II Verdict of Commerce Commerce Com Corn ci merce Court S. INGTON June Tunc 22 Tho 22 Tho ju su U urt t this is afternoon on reversed ro the theS S court and uphold the infer iner ra of the interstate o lI Q COil om Justice that hat the ho 1 J long DK DS sn and short haul dam dain 1 was as constitutional constitution constitution- al at al Th Tho commerce cot cou t had d held that thit the commission could not not ake blanket or or zone rates i This is the tho contention of ose who ho arc are opposed to the o 1 per cent increase in ill freight ht rates now DOW being aske by br the tto Eh Eastern u railroads railroads' 5 S The rhe rh chief ef justice next making of ot rates b by the too sion D by zones The zones selected by the commis- commis fion riou w were ere re in substance the samo sarno as those previously fixed by the tho carriers n the basis of of the rate making makins which was was' included include in tho tariffs which were investigation and therefore we ia Ia put the subject out of view S I he DC I Indeed except as to questions of r there is no contention in the tho Client ment as to the in inequality of the theof theof theof of the percentages or as to any I preference or discrimination re re- D ug from the action taken Sustain Order I ut zut be this as It tra may In view of ot the i s of ot th the commission as to the tho ts of ot rates ralea pr prevailing In tn the tariffs hi h iI were before It ot or the In Inequalities burdens en engendered ender d by such ruch s system the possible aJ aggrandizement S. S th the limits bv by com com- U in i fa fax favor or r of the competitive th points I I f d a against other points by br the tho tariff In facts which we accept and Itch Indeed are unchallenged W we see ee no und for saying that t tho the order was not by ly the facts on which It was sed ed ed or that It It- exceeded the powers Ich ilch the statute conferred or tran the limits of ot the sound round legal r which it lodged In the commission hen len on the subject before It lOn n the constitutionality of or the tho lone Ions and fort ort haul clause Chief Justice White Id It is certain that the fundamental argo which it makes Is la the tho omission of ot othe he substantially similar circumstances nd clause clause- thereby leaving the thelong thelong long long IonS and short haul clause in a sense unqualified un un- qualified except In so o far tar as tho the section elves the rJ right ht to the carrier to apply appl to the commission for authority to Ho charge age less for tor longer than for tor shorter distances for the transportation of ot persons per per- sons Ions or property and gives gl the commission commis commis- sion slon authority woe Urns to time to prescribe the extent to which such uch designated common carrier roa may be re relieved relieved relieved re- re of ot the operation of ot this section From l the failure to Insert an any word In Inthe tho the amendment tending to exclude the theop op operation of ot competition as adequate tinder under un tin- der proper circumstances to Justify theS the S awarding of relief fro long and short haul clause and there being nothing which or chant changes s the tho application lion tion of or the preference and discrimination t the s second ond and third sections It follows that In substance the tho amendment amendment amend ameni- ment Intrinsically states lato i no new rule or principle but simply shifts the powers on i b by the section as DS it originally l Is is it takes from tho the carriers that tood-that of at power previously pre I lb e deposit pu k d ed in them and vests it in the com com- comi i 1 HS us a primary Instead of ot a a. re reI reft te- te ft I Mewing function |