The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-12-18
IsrssrATE coMMERcE LAW.
Bcinsy Investigated by ~ Commits
from the senate,

b'tuSS tuNcHttRuteU ny COMMIT ito
from the senate.
Washington. December 1.-THE senate
committee on Interstate commerce today
examined District Attorney McFarlanc OF
New York regarding the resolution intro
duced by Senator Chandler Tho resolution
directed the committee to inquire whether
the existing agreement OF the so-called
traffic association provides againrt compc-
tition by stipulation that every railroad
company which is party thercso shall
make and maintain such rates as may 10
prescribed by the board OF managers and
provides Tor enforcing such stipulation by
tine, TO inquire whether such a stipulation
IN violation Of the prohibition Of the law
OF congress against tho pooling O, freight
or inc division OF earnings by Interstate
roads; TO inquire concerning tho litigation
pending In the Southern district OF New
York regarding the agreement and whether
any legislation liz deemed advisable to OK.
pedite matters and enforce any violation
or provision OF law against the Joint traffic
association II also directed the committee
TO investigate charges that Il pooling trust
agreement with money iines against viola
Tors OF the agreement and fixed rates for
products among the -four fnillers and win
dow glass manufacturers Of tho country
and whether or not they are In violation OF
monta aud briefs in the suits which he
conducted against the joilt traffic associa-
ton.
Mr.. McFarlanc said he hoped TO gct the
case through the circuit court OF appeals
at the term beginning January 10 aud lt
the department OF justice would agree to a
formal submission OF the case 1t might be
advanced and decision reached in the
United states supreme court in the early
spring Mr. Mcfurlnne denied with some
warmth an intimati0n that the injunction
proceedings were brought pro form and
without expectation of winning .ie declar-
ed that he had fought the case earnestly
and upon grounds that he believed to be
sound Mir. McFarlane said one of the de-
fects OF the Interstate commerce law was
that there was no definition OF what n
pooling of freight rates was. The United
states as party had a right to bring suit
against the rairond without an investiga-
tion by the interstate commerce commits
sion
He also spoke OF the doubtful character
of the antitrust law when some sugges-
ton was made that the tariff agreement
was in violation Of the statutes. The suit
he had brought against the Joint Traffic
association was 10 test the agreement on
its fncc and not what might be Its iutcn-
tion not expressed Sir. McFarlane said
that under the agreement there was no
doubt onch road was bound to abide by tho
rats HNtu by inc htHciNi HihndbNis va tue
association subject TO the hne imposed by
the association.
senator Chandler gave lively turn to
the inquiry by strongly insisting that the
department of justice had not passed OIL
the matter with vgor. He called specIl
attention to articles t6 and II OF the traffic
agreement. contendng that the articles
meant that the association could divide Its
earnings among the roads and that 1t should
have been the leading point presented in
the case i.,
Other members OF the committee did not
seem to tgree with Senator Chandler on his
construction OF the provisions of the quoted
sections OF law, but later, continuing; in
sisted that the case was not pushed with
vgor because Attorney General Harmon
held that the pooling agrecmnt was no
doubt legal. Some doubt WAS expressed
about this and Senator Chandler produced
n letter In which MIR Harmon stated that
no doubt the agreement was drawn within
the points covered by Judge Simington In
the trans Missouri case.
Mr.. McFarlane next spoke of the diff
Guilty encountered In finding judges who
y ere not disqualified from trying the cases
by reason of holding stock Of some Of the.
}arious companies who were parties TO the
agreement or the eight judges In the ju-
risdiction where the suit was brought Judge
Wheeler was the only one who disqualified
for this reason.
This development seemed to surprise the
committee which discussed the Gkastlon
whether or not the supreme court Judges
were DISQUALIFIED to try the case when It
came before them. No action was taken
looking to further investigation by the
committee