New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-24
GARTER AND PHELPS SPEAK
Joint TRAFFIC HEARING CON-
TINUED.

,oxrrxp THAT THE RAILROADS IN THEIR
AGREEMENT HAVE VIOLATED NO LAW.
oreument before Judge Wheeler in the United
- Circuit Court in the controversy pet"ee" .''o
sta'es Int and the railroad companies belonging
Govern ,,n, Traffic Association was resumed at
70 ". yesterday morning. James c. Carter or
il W. ,or the railroads. who was speaking when
cou adjourned Wednesday, resumed his arsu-
ue yesterday He reiterated his contention that
H',,,. Traffic Association could not De justly en-
u. M from carrying into effect the terms OF the
'b,naton 1t was urged by MI Nar'ei '"a'
eOre.nent was necessary. and that the railroads
the into 1t as matter Of necessity in order
hau " ,,oir interests and expedite business. TO
70 pr oonfusion rates on the different lines must
s N0 Uniformity was better for the public
De must have uniform and permanent rates
90 hat the manufacturers ana merchahts' III iac'
~ soors If ell classes could make definite cal
".,os as TO expenses in their business.
eua'' Csr,er asserted that there was wide diff
M between legal combination and a con-
-, Railroads could not afford TO enter into
.,,,,oss war against one another He would not
..on,n, 10 deny that the companies had entered
an agreement. but he contended that they
nv ,rstlded Dinerential rates were allowed.
", ornoving of soliciting agents was PROMPTED
certain extent. There was nothing illegal IN
matters The Joint Traffic Association I'M
80 nenaltes upon any OF its members VINO dis-
800 the rules. The tern pooling mad never
~. deAntely defined b. the courts. First must
.,aed what pool was. Let the term be con-
O',or.3 as meaning the putting OF several objects
49,. common receptacle. Mr.. Carter said that II
. 70 the interest of the public to have as great
s,ro,er Of railroads maintained as possible, in
- that the agricultural and other products OF
49, ,ountrv might be promptly moved clogglng
.H Wv t,seht at times would be disastrous Inc
Oh n,rv could not afford TO have any railroads
crowded TO the wall ,, D.o,,s -,
EA Ia. Tor the railroads. followed Mr. Carter. He
counavrcad that he would not go over the same
aVud that had been covered by Mr.. Carter he
sro"s ,hat there was even intention on the
oen . =, ths managers OF the companies 10 evade
pei r.oate the law. Two acts were alleged TO nave
" u, violated-the Antitrust act ana the inter-
pe.n commerce act. Suppose there was common
s'sse violation OF State law did not in this IN
sn, come under the jurisdiction OF the United
es,ss Court In the under consideration an
sSrsnnc,ton was sought Mr.. Phelps asserted mat
~ annlication Of the kind could be MADE tehaple
~ fraud was alleged II there was any ,such
.Ussation there might be ground for redress.
Thsre was no common law OF the United states
rsrranting an injunction. II remedy was sought
/, rnnst he in the OF criminal prosecutor
INV action must be brought under the 1urlsdlct.on
~ The act authorizing It. The suit now IN court
wos itself outside the Courts jurisdiction III was
Va. nroner 10 endeavor 10 make the Court part
~. machine TO create hardship for the railroaus
Mr.. Phelps will continue his argument To-Day