OCR Text |
Show WISCONSIN RATE CASE DECIDED Railroad Fares Within Statfts Subject to Federal Regulation , WASHINGTON. Feb 27 -Railroad p,s-isenger p,s-isenger fnres within u utatc are subject to regulation by the federal Kovernment, the supreme ,-ourt today declared. The court sustained the lower courts which prohibit prohib-it the Wisconsin rnllroud commission I from Interfering with the Chicago, Bur-llnirton Bur-llnirton 4L- gulncy mllrond in puttlnp into WCl Increases In jiaes ngcr fares In slate travel authorized by the interstate commerce commission. . Constitutionality of federal rallwav rate (making- powers aaserted in the trafispor-llatlon trafispor-llatlon uct was brought unl r concerted attack whn the Wisconsin rate ease was carried to tho supremo court for settlement. settle-ment. 1 While Wisconsin ad the Chicago. Bur-illngtoti Bur-illngtoti and Quincy" railroad alone wore parties to the action, more than two score slates Joined with ,. ,s onsin in challenging challeng-ing what the Interstate commorcc commission com-mission liAs held Is ,i cornerstone of the act. with the govern r ie it and all rnilroads doing Interstate business orracd in ln-torost ln-torost on the other aide. AUTHORITY CHALLENGED. Specifically. Wisconsin denied the authority au-thority of Ihc interstate common, com- mission under the art to upervlae rati making In Wisconsin. In its wider significance, signifi-cance, however, tho action promised to settle tho Issue as to whether Increased Interstate i-atea granted by the federal body to carry out the "fair return" punr-anty punr-anty to the roads in the act. should be n controlling factor In the making of rate within any state. The Wisconsin rullway commission carried car-ried lo the highest court Us appeal from jan injunction rcslmlnlm; It- from enforcing enforc-ing the state's two-cent law Increased freight nnd passenger rates ordered by the Interstate commerce commission ns necessary to assure the railroad earning the faJr return" were in-violation of the Wisconsin law. the state commission contended, con-tended, and their imislllon Over tho opposition op-position of nale authorities an Invasion of state rights. CONTENTIONS AIRED The transportation act so far us. it was construed by the Interstate commerce commission as giving It power to super-vlse super-vlse strictly jMate commerce, whs d'elim-d lo be unconstitutional, but counsel contended con-tended that no such authority was Included In-cluded in the act. nor was it Intended by conyn n Tlie Burlington replied that the Inter state commerce commission held indisputable indis-putable power to prevent a state from taking advantage of sister slate which "have afited liberally in tho public Interest. Inter-est. " Increased rates were necossarx to aectire adyiuate transportation facilities, it declared, and the authority of the federal fed-eral agencies lo rcI. even In Intrastate commerce, had previously been upheld by the upn mo court in the Shrovoport case. When the case ww called for argument March 11. 1?20. Chief Justice White rec-oKii'.-.-.i its Importance by allowing nine hours for Its presentation The solicitor nt ral the interstate commerce commission commis-sion aud many of the states availed them.seives of the opportunity to submit written briefs as well |