New-York tribune., 1896-04-22
THE JOINT TRAFFIC CASE.
HEARING BEGUN BEFORE JUDGE
WHEELER.
JUDGE
DIsTRICT-ATTORNEY MACFARLANE ARGUES
AGAINST THE AGREEMENT. AND JAMES c.
CARTER AND OTHER LAWYERS AP-
PEAR FOR THE COMPANIES.


PEAR FOR THE COMPANIES.
The question as TO whether the thirty-two rail-
road companies comprising the Joint Traffic Asso-
caton shall be permitted to operate under their
agreement came up for argument before Judge
Wheeler in the United States Circuit Court yester-
day.
United States Distrct-Attorney Macfarlane argued
for the Government and counsel for the defence
James G. Carter. l.. c. Lcdyard. f. J. Phelps,
ex-Minister TO England: f. Randolph Robinson. c.
B. Alexander. ex-Judge Ashbe Green and Judge
Logan, representing Southern railway companies.
DstrictAttorney Macfarlane said that the Board
Of Managers had made or established certain rates
charges which they were expected 10 abide by
afterward The control Of traffic being established
there must be some method Of getting the traffic
distributed The construction Of the law must be
made by the Court.
The pooling system Is we'll known In this coun-
try" said Mr. Macfarlane. but II was made use OK
In Europe long before II was brought here The
people remember the association Of the trunk lines
Albert Fink the expert who was the exponent
of pooling. The pooling Of freight was traffic pool
1t was the outcome OF agreement between the
companies concerned Somebody must be the repre-
sentative agent OF the pool and apporton the busi-
ness the respective companies. The companies
avoiding the term pool called their agreement an
Association They accomplished their object for
years The new law. which was against the system.
constructed for the purpose OF protecting the
public Means ot cvading the law were suggested
II WAS difficult draw the line between legal and
an Illegal copartnershp. but the spirit OF the law
could be easily comprehended by any fair-minded
man"
Mr.. Macfarlane said that instances OF combina-
tions or consultations OF telegraph companies could
be cited where courts decided that the interests
OF the public ist be protected 1t was not dihi-
cult TO read between the lines of an agreement or
to understand where the law was evaded. An agree
ment on the part of railroad companies to equalize
balances virtually division or allotment OF
traffic
Mr. Macfarlane said that he desired to call the
attention Of the Cour, what constituted an agree
ment. The OF certain agreement between
dealers In cited. In the coal CAGE the Court
held that an agreement maintain hxei prices was
Illegal 1t was held that compact OF the KIND was
a conspiracy against the interests OF the public inc
public welfare endangered. and the compact
could not be tolerated. Mr. Macfarlane said that
he could go quoting authorities and Instances
to show that the position taken by him was tenable.
but he believed 1t unnecessary to do 40. The Gov
ernment's right 10 upon the facts shown was
plain. When facts were proved. 1t remained Tor the
Court to decide as TO what the actual tc, lency
Of the agreement, or understanding The ant-pool-
ing clause OF the law plain that there should
be no misunderstanding as to It's Import The need
of the law was evident long before ConSress TOOK
effective action In the matter The Word Jont.
he said. referred to arrangement between compet-
Ing lines Of railroads This had been conceded by
Defendants The Interstate commerce act prphlDltfl
rebates and Joint tariffs. Congress deliberately pro-
hibted pOoling-tle effective means employed 10 add
TO the profits OF railroad companies. Commerce
mean. traffic between States. Mr.. Macfarlane said
he could not how the business OF railroads could
be characterized as anything other than commerce
4 chartered company a public institution II
derived its privileges from the people and was amen
able the people.
Mr. Macfarlane argued that the United States had
Q right enioin companies who had contracts
against tho public interest The Government OF the
United States had Jurisdiction over every foot OF
soil within the boundaries OF the country. This
Jurisdiction e abled the Government 10 remove any
obstruction 10 the free carrying OF the mails and 10
remove many obstacles to the public welfare Rail
roads could not be exempted from the general rule.
Pooling simply one form OF restraint 10 trade.
James G. Carter then spoke for the defendants.
plan that they common carriers. The rail-
roads subject TO competition with one another.
Later laws and methods were subjected to modihca
tons Private capitalists were invited 10 put money
into the construction Of roads They made their
investments with the understanding that they were
10 protected In certain privileges. Tho different
companies entered into the race for business In
many instances competition drove the weaker com
panies 20 the wall Some railroad organizations
were driven into bankruptcy. Others were abb
sorbed by the more powerful combinations. There
were cuttings Of rates which brought disaster upon
numerous roads. II necessary for the COM
panies TO make agreements TO maintain paying
rates This was what was aftcrwarl termed pool
ing II must BE- admitted that withal the combnd-
tion rates were cheaper In the United States than
In other countries.