The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-03-26
THE DECISION.

rh,t Associations Which
.roI Rates nre Trusts.
sscl.lon was rendered by Justice
Nm with Justices White, Field Gray
ss,-,, dissenting. Justice reckham
tx nearly every point made by the
tuys AS to the question OF dissolution
purt holds lilac,
an answer to the fact of the disso-
q, =. The association II Is SHOWN oil
W., of the government that these
pa asiendapts. or most OF them. in
u,n..av entered into substantially
60 sereement, which was 10 re-
~ n force for a certain time, anu
~. which the companies acted, AMI
,srs to which 1t docs not appear
,ssv are not still acting. IL the
" y. d,ssolution of the association
MA an abatement Of the suit as 10
49, attendants, as is the claim maoo
Ssr mart, IL is plain that they have
y. discovered an effectual means to
scysot the Judgment Of TINS court
s,u upon the question really ihVoiVeu
!, NM case. The defendants having
rsseded in the court below, II would
:, IL necessary thereafter to dissolve
A. ~ association and instantly form an
W, n similar kind, and the fact OF
4. i,ssolution would prevent an op-
- N this court or procure its dis
r.,,I n taken. This result does not
- o,,ght not to follow. We think,
,.riore the first ground urged by tho
sS.rd.nis far the dismissal of the up,
rel Is unterable.
r.rlns ia The merits Of the suit, Justice
..Ann states that there are two i'npor-
!, ouestlons which demand examination.
n are. first, whether the trust act ap-
IA to and covers common carriers ny
klrcsd; aud if 50, second, does the agree
WI SET forth in the bill violate any pro-
|z,n Of that act?
AS TO COMMON CARRIERS.
Asto the first question, the court held:
A contract that rs in restraint Of
t,ie or commerce is by the strict Ian
raage Of the act prohibited, though
rath contract Is entered into between
uumon carriers by railroad, and only
lw the purpose of thereby affecting
Traffic rates for the transportation of
|Isnons and property. II such an agree
cent restraints trade or commerce IL is
|Fphibited by the statute, unless II can
X SAID that an agreement, no matter
Wat its terms, relating only to trans
|Etation, can not restrain trade or
|Enmerce. We see no escape from the
INCLUSION that II any agreement or
Eh nature does restrain it, the
fr I,, IA. It
|E not be denied that those who are
saged in the transportation of per-
uf or property from one State 10 an
essr are engaged in interstate COM
tTre, and 1t would seem TO follow that
Eiueh persons enter INTO agreemt
kEsen themselves in regard to the
aHpensaticn to be secured from the
s'ier Of the articles transported. such
iTeement would at'least relate TO the
1ailess OF commerce, and might more
less restrain it.
ING point urged on the defendants
~ Is mat the statute was not really
IIended to reach that kind OF an agree
.sn relating only TO traffic rates en-
sifd INTO by competing common car
hen BY railroad. that IL was intended
~ isaeh only those who were engaged
~ we manufacture or sale of articles
y wanerce and who, by means of
suse, comhinations and conspiracios,
A, ~. engaged In affecting the supply or
J, ~ lgae or the piece of manufacture
SUN articles. The terms of the act
y nv lol Dear out such construction.
49,. we lave held that the trust act did
w! 10 company engaged in one
s,. 49, u 'ne refining Of sugar under the
T,, Instances. S. detailed in the case of
my u s'ates VS.. f. c. knight COM
- ~, because the refining of sugar
A.. 49, mose circumstan, es bore no dis
s w relation to commerce between the
tuss WV VI win foreign nations. 10 ex-
Mn. easements as TO rates by COM
i $40 l,aiiroads for Tho Transportation
I,a. sies OF commerce between the
.lLs et, oaif leave little for the act to
JUSTICE PECKHAM,s coNc1Jls,oN
j., ''url at this point dwells at some
l, VI The contention OF the railways
|. -. Interstate commerce act author
/. 'Sea an association as the TRANSMITS
r, Justice Peckham conclules:
tari, . commerce act does not au-
s.,s,Is,a an agreement like this one in
NM s,H,n' It may nor in terms nro-
t,ker y al. u Is far from comforting.
lulbo-,,un fee'ly or by implication, any
I'M M 10 make IT, If the agree
klty "eai 1t does not owe It's val
csrce A.. any provision of the COM
ssis 80 ,, and IL Illegal 1t is not
Ton n,..p ny mat act. The fifth sec
d, rtua'ni's what Is termed "pcsl-
ion n ,u' there is no express provI-
l,nanea me act prohibiting the main
Min, ~, ~ traffic rates among COM
heut :, ,'aas by making such an agree
ltu vs ms, nor is there any proyi-
h ,o Sn.vh permits II. :. A
'ti ayr nc, act does not authorize
'seal Nv si,nehi' arguments a-ainst A
DE ~ ~, implication Of the provisions
IsA AM. which it is alleged grant
lts'e 4 'ly becomes Ineffective.
aA yta,n w repeal IN the case. aud
! iaeonsls, may stand, us neither
J, ~. a'eht with the other.
.ss point that the sherman net did
Ne "a. "ays' the court says.
,'rsreOus nothing either in contem-
IA Al tho history in ,hs legal situa-
atu.e f., uine of The passage Of the
any rsr. ly legislative history, or
hind ~ a. aineronce In the nature
dnpanIas Fading or manufacturing
hlch wod,, from railroad companies,
At II can IRA "ad us 10 tho conclusion
We In nr sI ne supposed the legisla-
'airars prohibiiing the making OF
, lnelr ~ IN res,ralr, Of trade INTENDED
lev J, railroads within tho n,,r.
atrte i, 'aa, act. Neither is the
IL m ~ our judgment, so unoertaln
lsae th., s''ins or its Language 80
leabls y ought not TO he held an
ink AZ, 70 railroads. Ne
y stata,.. careful examination Tint
'eoysr eon,, covers end was Intenlcd
Mp .. y'nlnon carriers by railroad