Jasper County Democrat, Volume 11, Number 29, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 12 September 1908 — “INVALIDITY IS APPARENT" [ARTICLE]

“INVALIDITY IS APPARENT"

That Is What Judge Gray Says of the Disputed Clause. Judge Gray in his opinion discussed St great length tbe limitations put upon congress by the stonstltution. and con eluded as follows: “From every point of view which we have been able to approach the question the unreasonableness and consequent invalidity of this so-called ‘commodities clause* is apparent. It invades the rights of the state by striking down the liberty hitherto innocently enjoyed by its citizens under the laws and usages of the commonwealth to engage in interstate com merce to the fullest extent, as to all harmless articles, whether owned or not owned by the carrier, and deprives of their property these defendants con trary to tbe letter and spirit of the fifth amendment to the constitution. “If the enactment in question be warranted by the commerce clause of the constitution it is hard to see what bounds may be set to the exercise of that power. It will, indeed, be an open door through which tlie forces of a centralization hitherto unknown may enter at will to the overthrow of that just balance between federal and state power for which the makers of the < onstltutlon so wisely provided, as an es sent!al to the preservation of our dual form of government. “We confine ourselves to the concrete facts presented by the pleading* in these cases, mid intimate no opinion either wav as to.cases where the property fins been acquired by the car riers subsequent to the passage of th“ act. For the reasons stated, therefore, these bills in equity are dismissed an I the petition for writs of mandamus on the law side of this court are denied “ Judge Dallas, in his opinion, say* that he fully concurrs “ip the foregoing opinion, and the little now to be added is intended merely to accentuate my acceptance of it.” Tart Reply to Uncle Sam. Chicago. Sept. 11. —In a tart reply filed to the petition of the government for a rehearing of the Standard Oil case, the attorneys for the company, in urging that the ruling of the federal court of appeals setting aside tbe $29.240.000 fine imposed by Judge Landis be allowed to stand, rapped back at the prosecuting attorneys. Their exceptions were termed “captious and groundless” and they were accused of arguing hypothetical questions and conjuring up Impossible illustrations In support of their contentions.