The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1896-03-22


Traffic Association Whereby it May be
Got at by the Interstate Cor: IN cree Law
ALI the defendant Companies Ad-
mitted to Possess Certain Qualities Not
Pertaining to the Association But De
MED That They are Within the Law
Benevolent Designs Professed.
New York, March 21-Through its
solicitor, George c. Green, the Lake
shore and Michigan Southern railway
company, one Of the thirty-two railroad
companies defendant in the suit of the
United States against the Joint Traffic
association, filed its answer today with
the clerk of the United States circuit
court of this district. The answer re-
cites that the Joint Traffic association
is not incorporated, is not a common
carrier, and is not engaged in the trans
portation of freight and passengers, nor
in trade. It admits that all Of the de-
PENDANT companies are common car
riers, either separately or in connection
with one another, but denies that any
of them have been otherwise engaged
in interstate commerce. It is also de-
MED in the answer that the Joint Traffic
association agreement, entered into in
November, 1895, is in any way unlawful,
or that il is intended TO restrict honest
competition, to establish rates of fare or
freight. The Joint Traffic agreement, it
is alleged, does not surrender the con-
troll of traffic to the board of managers,
although the association is advised and
believes st has the legal right SO to do.
L is the purpose of the association to
prevent Legitimate competition and the
payment of rebates and commissions,
which are rufnous to legitimate railway
traffic. It is denied that the board Of
manager is empowered to divide traffic
among the roads, only IN so far as may
be fairly and legally done. The fixing
of rates by the board Of managers is
contemplated only so far as 10 give con-
Meeting roads their pro rata share.
TO MAINTAIN RATES.
It is further purpose of the associa-
ton, says the answer, to prevent dis
elimination and favOritism among ship
pers, and to secure such action among
the carriers as is necessary to maintain
legitimate freight rates. For the bene-
fit Of the public, as well as the roads,
It is asserted to be desirable that weaker
roads should be aided, and this pur-
pose, also, the association desires TO
serve. 1t is its further purpose not to
permit of violation of the Interstate
commerce act.
The answer denies that there IS any
conspiracy on the part Of the aSsocia-
ton TO unjustly augment rates or TO
hinder free and just competition. The
Joint Traffic agreement, it is said was
duly filed with the interstate commerce
commission.
In conclusion, the answer declares
that the railroad companies parties to
the agreement are not, nor is the Joint
Traffic association, subject to the pro-
visions of the act Of congress, entitled
"An Act to Protect Trade and Com
merce. as against Unlawful Restraints
and MOnopOlieS," approved July 2, 1890.
AIMED AT THE TRUSTS.
This act, it is held, does not relate to
the business of common carriers, but
solely to so-called trusts, industrial
combinations and attempted monopo-
lies, undertanlxen by persons or corpora
tons engaged in trade as manufacture
ers, miners or dealers in products.
The complaint, it is claimed, is not
entitled to maintain its suit upon mere
general allegations, and without speci-
flying what particular statute the joint
Traffic agreement violates.
The answer of the Lake Shore and
Michigan Southern Railroad company
Is said 30 be identical, in substance at
least, and possibly in text, with the
answers of thirty-one other defendant
companies, yet to be filed.