Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-07-24

the Attorney General by telegraph that
the company was violating this law in
that 1t constituted an unlawful comoi-
bination 10 restraint OF trade. The
Attorney General says, as we learn
from press dispatches, that the inior-
nation telegraphed by the District At
torney was that he had reasons for be-
ileving that the company was not
making proper efforts to run its trains,
and that the District Attorney asked
for authority TO file bill 10 equity uu-
der the antitrust law. Authority was
given. Mr.. DENNIS says he received
the following telegram: "Let act Of July
., 1890, be enforced against all violators,
including railway and transportation
companies. You are hereby authorized
TO bring suits 20 that end" Therefore
he brought suit 10 compel a disintegra-
ton OF the Southern Pacific into its
original component parts. Press dis
patches, reporting the substance of an
interview with the Attorney General,
say that il was his understanding that
suit would be brought TO compel the
performance of the company's duties
under the law. and, 80 far as he knew,
for no other purpose" and at the same
time it is stated that "lt is the opinion
Of the officials Of the Department Of
Justice that such cancellations are not
only legal, but were contemplated by
the Inter State Commerce act.
1t may be pointed out that Federal
court has decided, in a suit brought for
the enforcement of the antitrust law,
that this law is not applicable 10 associa-
tious OF railroad companies. Reference is
made TO the decision of Judge RNER Of
the United States District Court, in the
case Of the United States against the
Trans-Missouri Freight Association, an
association composed of the Atchison,
Rock island, Union Pacific, Missouri
Pacific, and fourteen other railroad
companies. These companies had COM
bined TO suppress competition iu freight
rates, aud the power TO fix uniform
rates had been given 70 q board or com
m,ttee.
For several reasons Judge RINER held
that the association was not an uulaw-
full combination under the provisions OF
the act, and tAen be asserted that il had
not been the purpose Of Congress to
make this statute applicable to combi-
nations formed by railroad companies.
Its true that this suit does not 90 on
all fours, as tho lawyers say, with the
new suit in California. In one case the
government asks that the thirty or more
corporations Of which the Southern
Pacific has been built uD shall be sep
arated and restored TO there orig
iuaI independent condition, aud
it will be contended that the
process Of consolidation or annexa-
ton has been a legal and iustifable
Que. In the other case several rail-
road companies, independent of each
other in otker respects, entered into a
combination, so far as freight rates
were concerned, 70 suppress conpeti-
ton in the determination of those
rates. In this case it was claimed that
several railroad corporations were act
ing in combination for the restraint Of
trade and the prevention Of competi-
tion iu carrying charges. In Caliior-
MIA, however, there has been an actual
/ and legal consolidation Of all the inter-
ests OF the corporations. The effect of
this consolidation upon producers and
other interests 10 California has been
different from the effect of similar con
soidatious of small railroad companies
q the East, because the one corpora
tion so formed practically monopoIizes
the railroad carrying trade of Caiii0r-
MIA. 10 seems quite clear that Mr..
DENNIs's suit does not have the basis
and purpose which the Attorney GEN
eral desired and intended that any suit
which he might bring should have. Fur
ther developments will probably show
in what manner the Attorney General
intended the District Attorney should
enforce the antitrust Law against this
railroad company.