The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-04-14

| Bradstreet's points out what must be
perfectly clear TO anybody who has given
more than superficial reading to the
recent decision of the supreme Court ap-
| plying the provisions Of the so-called
antitrust law TO the railroad traffic
agreements, or pools that the principles
material effect upon one class of agHe-
mcnts or combinations that OF late years
have had an important bearing upon COM
mcrcc and ndustry-namely, agreements
OF combinations between employees Of
transportation companies. The court in
its decision, lays down the rule that the
term contracts in restraint Of trade, - in
cludes all kinds Of contracts which in fact
restrain, or may restrain, trade, and is
not confined 90 such as are in unreason-
able restraint Of trade Indeed, il lays
down the rule that, as regards the bust
ness which the railroads do, IL is Of such
public nature, so closely affecting almost all
classes in the communicable farmer, tho
trader, the artisan and the manufactures
that it may we'll be doubted to say the
least whether any contract which imposes
any restraint upon its business would not
be prejudicial to the public interest The
decision goes even further in its statement
of this doctrine, and says in express
terms: "The claim that the company has
the right to charge reasonable rates, and
that, therefore, 1t has the right to enter
into a combination with competing roads
To maintain such rates, cannot be ad-
mtted "
Under these rulings Of the court it can
not bo doubted that any agreements or
combinations of whatever kind between
any bodies or persons which operate 10
restrain trade as represented by tranSpor-
tation Of an Interstate character are pro-
hibitcd by the antitrust law. IL matters
not whether these agreements or combi-
nations are between the railroads them
selves, as represented by their managers,
or between their employees, as represented
by the various organizations of such,
which have become well known in the
development of the carrying industry.
Combinations or agreements between
employees have heretofore been held to be,
under certain circumstances, contracts i'm
restraint Of trade, and, beyond doubt
many agreements between employees or
of them which directly
affect the business Of the railroads en-
gagged in interstate commerce must be
illegal under ruling which declares in
valid all contracts In restraint of trade
whether reasonable or unreasonable.
Combinations of railroad employees are,
as general thing aimed to secure either
increases of wages or regulations of the
hours of labor or other bettcrincnts of
their condition. In operation they must
of necessity, in some way or in some
degree affect the business of transporta-
tion, and In this way restrain trade. If
the objects proposed by them were in
reasonable the combinations
would not be held obnoxious 20 the anti
trust law il that measure wcro held to
prohibit only contracts unrcasOnably
restraining trade. The majority of the
Supreme Court has, however, held that
tho act prohibits reasonable us well as
restraints of trade, and it is
difficult to see how almost any agree
mont between employees Of transportation
engaged in interstate con-
lnerce can bo supported under its ruling
II carried out 10 its logical conclusions