OCR Text |
Show RITE USE DECIDED Supreme Court Holds That Rates Are Unconstitutional Un-constitutional Minnesota Min-nesota Wins a Big Victory Opinion by Justice Hughes I. Holds Congress' Power Pow-er Extends Over Every Part of Commerce Washington, June 9. The state of Minnesota won a substantial victory in the supreme court today, when, In the Minnesota state rate case. Justice B Hughes for the court, held that the rates ofr the Minneapolis and St Louis railroad were confiscatory and unconstitutional but that the rates oi the Northern Pacific and Great Northern were valid. The decision was a victory for the state on the interstate commerce phases of the controversy and upon the confiscatory features with the exception ex-ception of the portion affecting the Minneapolis and St Louis, Ju6tlc Hughes said: "One The constitution gives congress con-gress an authority at all limes adequate ade-quate to secure the freedom of interstate in-terstate commercial intercourse from ftate control and to provide effective regulation of that Intercourse as the national interest may demand "Two The commerce that i6 confined con-fined within one state and does not affect other states, is reserved to the etate This reservation Is only of tha j power which is consistent with the grant to congress. The authority of congress extends to every part of In - ' terstate commerce and to every In-j fetrumentallty or agency by which P Is carried on; and the full control by congress over the subjects committed to its regulation is not to be denied or I thwarted by the Intermingling of interstate in-terstate and Intrastate operations. i "Three Een without action by I congress, the commerce clause of the constitution necessarily excludes the states from direct control of subjects embraced within the clause w hich are of such nature, that , If regulated at all, their regulation should be prescribed pre-scribed by a single authority There is thus secured the essential immunity immun-ity of interstate intercourse from the imposition by the states of direct burdens and restraints "Four But there remains to the states the exercise of the power ap-propriate ap-propriate to their territorial Jurledlc-t'on Jurledlc-t'on in making suitable provision for, local needs The state may provide: lecal improvements, create ami regulate regu-late local facilities and adopt protec- ' tlve measures of a reasonable char-acter char-acter in the Interest of the health safety, morals aud welfare of Hb peo-pie, peo-pie, although Interstate commerce ina incidentally or Indirectly be Involved Where matters falling within the state J' power, as above described, are also ; by reason of their relation to inter- j state commerce, within the reach of the federal power, congress must be I the Judge of the necessity of federal action and until congress acts the state may act The paramount authority au-thority of congress enables It to In- ' tervene at Is discretion for the complete com-plete and effective government of that which has been committed to Its care and for this purpose and to this ex tent In response to a conviction of national need to displace local laws by substituting laws of its own live State regulation of railroad ti .'S began with railroad transportation. transporta-tion. Tho authority of the slate to prescribe what shall be reasonable charges on Intrastate transportation is state wide, unless it be limited bv I the exertion of the constitutional power of congress with respect to , interstate commerce nad its lnstru- ments. As a power appropriate to the territorial Jurisdiction of the state. It Is not confined to a part of the I state, but extends throughout the state Y to its cities adjacent to its bountl-' bountl-' arles, as well as to those in the Interior In-terior of the state If this authority of the state be restricted it must be by virtue of the actual exercise of federal control and not by reasou W merely of a dormant federal power, jnl that is one which has not been ex-pM ex-pM ertel. "Six Congress In acts to regulate fl,lj commerce expressly provided that the provisions of the act should not cx-r4 cx-r4 tnd to transportation 'wholly within one state,' having rogard to the terms 0 of the federal statute, tho familiar l t range of state action at the time it nfH whs enacted exercise of state autbor-l)M autbor-l)M Ity in the same manner and to the pi same extent after its enactment, tho 4 decisions of this court recognizing f and upholding this authority the court finds no foundation for the proposition i hat the ait to regulate commerce contemplated in interference with the authority of the state to prescribe reasonable rates for tho exclusively I Internal traffic throughout the extent B of its territory. Neither by the original act nor by pw its amendment 1ms congrest f-ought Hits to establish a unified control over In-L; In-L; terstate and intrastate rates, it has M not set up a standard for Intrastate nitos or prescribed or authorized the ln federal comiiilst-lon to preberibc, elth-or elth-or maximum or minimum rates for j5 Intrastate traffic. The fixing of rea-tlfl rea-tlfl sonable rates for Intrastate transpor-fliW transpor-fliW latlon was lefr by the act where It I had been found, that Is. with the 5 states and the agencies created by the 14 1 states to deal with that subject. "Seven. Under the established principles governing state action, Minnesota Min-nesota did not transom! the limits of Its authortn in prescribing the rates here involved assuming them to be reasonable state rates. It exercised an authority appropriate to its territorial jurisdiction and not opposed to any action thus far taken bv congress Eighth The Inlcrblending of operations oper-ations in the conduct of interstate and local business bv Interstate carriers car-riers and the exigencies that are said to arise with respect to the maintenance mainte-nance of interstate rates by reason of their relation to intrastate rates, are considerations for the practical judg- ment of congress If ihe situation ha j become such that adequate regula- tion of interstate rates cannot be i maintained without Imposing requirements require-ments with respect to such Intrastate) rates of interstate carriers as substantially sub-stantially affect Interstate rates u l for congress to determine within the limits of its constitutional authority! over Interstate commerce and lis instruments, in-struments, the measure of the regulation regula-tion it should supply. It is the function of the court to interpret and apply the law already enacted, but not, under the guise of construction to provide a more com parative scheme of regulation than congress has decided upon Nor in the absence of federal action may effect ef-fect be denied to the laws of the state enacted within the field which it Is I entitled to occupy until its authority is limited through the exertion by congress con-gress of 1 1 8 paramount constitutional power "Nine: On the issue of confiscation The rate-making power is a legislative power and necessarily Implies B ranee of legislative discretion The court does not sit as a board of review to I substitute its judgment for that legislature legis-lature or of the commission lawfully constituted by It. as to matters within with-in the province of either. "The question Is whether in prescribing pre-scribing a general schedule of rates involving the profitableness of the Intrastate In-trastate operations of tho carrier, taken ta-ken as a whole, the state has superseded super-seded the constitutional limit by ma! -lug the rates confiscatory The property prop-erty of the railroad corporation has been devoted to a public use Hut th state has not seen fit to undertake the ser Ice Itself and the private property embarked In it is not placed at the mercy of capital it rests secure un der the constitutional protection w hich extends not merelj to the title, bul to the right to receive just eompensn tlon for the services given to the pub lie Concluding his opinion. Justice HQghes said "Tenth lu the cases of the Northern North-ern Pacific and Great Northern companies, com-panies, on the examination of estimates esti-mates of value and mefhodH oi" apportionment, appor-tionment, it is concluded that the proof Is Insufficient i Justify :i finding find-ing that the rates were confiscatory nd the decrees are reversed with Instructions In-structions to dismiss the bill in each case without prejudice." "Eleventh In the case of the Minneapolis Min-neapolis and St. Louis Railroad' corn-pan) corn-pan) it is fouud, in view of the special spe-cial facts appearing that the margin of error In the estimates and caicu lations was not sufficient to affei I the result. The decree in thnt ca.se adjudging ad-judging the rates to be confiscatory Is therefore affirmed with the modification modi-fication that the members of the railroad rail-road and warehouse commission and tho attorney general of the state may apply to the courl by bill or otherwise as they may be advised to a further order or decree whenever It shall appear ap-pear that by reason of a change In circumstances the rates fixed l the Biates acts and orders are sufficient to yield to this company reasonable compensation for the services rendered." ren-dered." no |