New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-03-27
JUSTICE WHITES OPINION.
DISSENT FROM THE DECISION IN THE
TRANSMISSOURI CASE.
A VIGOROUS ARGUMENT MADE TO SHOW THAT
THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. RATHER THAN
THE LETTER, SHOULD BE FOLLOWED

States. In the Transmissouri Freight Association
case. wherein the majority of the Court decided on
Monday last that the Antitrust law of 1880 was
valid and constitutional, and that the agreement Of
the association was in restraint Of trade. and there
fore in violation OF its provisions and I'm which Jus
tces Field Gray and Shiras Joined. has been made
puolc In full II Is nearly volum!nous the
opinion of the Court delivered by Justice Peckham
and traverses the arguments and conclusions OF
that document In vigorous way. Introducing the
matter, Justice White says:
THE theory upon which the contract is held to be
Illegal is that. though 1t be reasonable and
hence valid. under the general principles Of law. It
Is yet void because It conflicts with the OF Con-
gicss. Now. at the outset. is necessary to under
stand the full Import OF this conclusion. As IT Is
conceded that the contract does unrcasonably
restrain trade, and that II II does so unreason
ably restrain II Is valid under the general law the
decision substantially Is that the act Of Congress
is departure from the general principles OF law.
and by Its terms destroys the right Of individuals
or corporations to enter into very many reasonable
contracts. But this proposition. submit is tanta-
mount TO an assertion that tho act OF Congress IS
Itself unreasonable. The difficulty Of meeting by
reasoning premise OF this nature IS frankly
ceded. for OF course, where the fundamental propo-
sition upon which the whole contention is
that the act Of Congress IS unreasonable II would
seem conductive to useful purpose to invoke rea-
son as applicable to and controlling the
struction Of a statute which s admitted to be be-
yond the pale Of reason. The question. then. s Is
the act of Congress relied be interpreted
as to give 1t reasonable meaning. Is # to be
construed as being unreasonable and as vloative
OF the elementary principles Of justice?'
EQUIVALENT TO BARRING ALL TRADE
The opinion discusses this question In the light
or former decisions as 10 reasonable and unreason-
eble arguments in restraint Of trade and on that
point the conclusion Is reached that ito define
there the words in restraint OF trade az embrace
Ing every contract which in any degree produced
that effect would be volative of reason because
1t would include all those contracts which are the
very essence Of trade and would be equivalent 70
saying that there should be no trade and there
fore nothing restrain"
The principles OF proper construction are re-
viewed by the Justice. and he says: "If these OBJ
vious rules Of Interpretation be applied. II seems
to mo they render II impossible to construe the
words every restraint of trade used in the act
In any other sense than excluding reasonable
contracts. ms the fact that such contracts
considered to be within the rule OF contracts in
restraint Of trade thoroughly established both
/ In England and In this country the time the
act was adopted. II s I submit not 10 be doubted
that the Interpretation Of the words every con-
tract in restraint OF trade so TO embrace with
In It's purview every contract. however reasona BILE
would certainly work an enormous Injustice and
operate TO the undue restraint Of. the liberties Of
the citizen. But there is canon OF lnterpreta-
tion which requires that the letter be followed
when by doing unreasonable result is
complished On the contrary. the rule Is the
other way. and exacts that the spirit which
WHITES. and not tho letter which killeth. is the
proper guide by which correctly to interpret
7 statute.
FOR THE FEW AGAINST THE MANY
''The remedy intended TO be accomplished by the
act of Congress TO shield against the danger OF
contract or combination by the few against the in
The construction given, think. strikes down
the Of the many TO the advantage and bene-
ft OF the few. II has been neld IN a case Involving
combination among workingmen that such com
binatons are embraced I'm the act OF Congress In
question. and this view doubted by this
court The Interpretation Of the statute therefore,
which holds that reasonable agreements are within
IT'S purview MAKES Il embrace every peaceable or
ganzation or combination az the laborer 10 bene-
ft his condition either by obtaining an increase Of
wages o. dimnution OF the hours OF labor 1t fol-
lows that the construction which reads the rule OF
reason out Of the statute embraces within its in
hibition every contract or combination by which
workngmen seek pcaceaby - better their condition
1t is, therefore, assert. absolutely say that
the construction adopted, which works out
such results not only illustrates the plain purpose
intended TO be accomplished by Congress. but also
makes the statute tend end never contemplated
and against the accomplishment Of which it's provi-
siOns were enacted"
THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS-
Justice White also discusses the question: Does
the implication irresistibly arise that Congress In
tended in the Act of lS9) TO abrogate in whole or
in part the provisions OF the Act OF 1857 regulating
interstate commerce. He concludes that the
nature Of the two enactments clearly demonstrates
tina. there was such Intention
4 consideration OF the terms OF the Interstate
Commerce act makes It clear him that the
contract here sought to be avoided Illegal is
either directly sanctioned impliedly authorized
thereby. Tho agreement in question, seeking 10
secure uniform classification and prevent the
underwriting OF the published rates even though
such agreements be made with competing we'll
Joint lines. is In accord with tho plain text OF
the Interstate Commerce act, and is In harmony
with the views Of the purpose OF that law contem-
poraneousy expressed to Congress by the body
Immediately charged with its administration. and
tacity approved by Congress.
MEANING OF THE ACT DEFEATED.
ITO my mind the Judicial declaration that car
riers cannot agree among themselves for the pur-
pose OF aiding in the enforcement Of the provisions
Of the Interstate Commerce law will strike blow
at the beneficial results of that act and Will have
a direct tendency to produce the preferences and
determinations which 1t was one Of the main OBJ
jects OF the act TO Illustrate"
In conclusion the minority say: "Manifesty this
decision is utterly rrcconcilabe with the view
that in the OF railroad company every
straint imposed by contract upon its freedom OF
action is necessarily injurious the public inter-
ests and hence invalid. Indeed tho proposition
that any restraint OF It's conduct which a railroad
may create by contract Is invalid, because such
road Is public corporation. is demonstrated TO be
erroneous by the Interstate Commerce act. which.
in the provisions heretofore referred to. not only
expressly authorizes but In some instances com
mands agreements from which restraint of the
action of the corporation necessarily arises"