OCR Text |
Show HEPBURN RATE LAW UPHELD BY COURT Commodities Clause of Inter-State Commerce Act of 1906 Approved Ap-proved by Supreme Judges. While Law Is Held to be Constitutional, Constitu-tional, Court Does . Not Concede the Contentions of the Government Gov-ernment as to Its Scope. Washington. That the "commodities "commodi-ties clause" of the interstate commerce com-merce act of 1906, known as the Hepburn Hep-burn rate law. is constituional was in effect declared on Monday, May 3, by the supreme court of the United Slates. The deejision was announced by Justice White. The court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States circuit court, but the only directions were to enforce and apply the statute as it is now construed. con-strued. Briefly summarized, the decision of the supreme court in tue commodities clause cases holds the law to be constitutional, con-stitutional, but it does not concede the 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 not constitute such ownership as would prohibit transportation under the terms of the law. It was also held that ownership of the commodity applied ap-plied only to the time of transportation. transporta-tion. If before transporting it the railroad company has in good faith parted with a commodity it may carry it. The principal point of the decision was in relation to the railroads holding hold-ing the stock) ol? subordinate com panies and on that important point the finding was favorable to the roads. Justice Harlan dissented on the stock feature, but otherwise the decision de-cision was unanimous.. These cases had been decided by .the circuit court favorably to the railroads rail-roads in that the clause of the Hepburn Hep-burn rate law, which prohibits interstate inter-state railroads from carrying commodities com-modities manufactured, mined or produced pro-duced directly or indirectly by the roads, was declared unconstitutional. The general impression had been that that decision would be affirmed in the supreme court. When, therefore, there-fore, there was a reversal instead of an affirmation, the interest was much magnified. |