The San Francisco call., 1897-03-26

of railway transportation. They urged
that the interstate commerce act, SO
called. passed in 1887 and amended from
time to time in respects in which IL nao
been found defective down to the passage
of the antitrust act, constituted COM
prehensive and minute code of railway
regulation, and that the antitrust act was
not intended to cover the same subject
matter but was directed against known
combinations which popularity wen tiunder
the name of trusts, such as the steel rail-
trust, Standard Oil trust, sugar trust, etc.
The interstate commerce act prohibits
pools; but it was admitted in the case
that the traffic agreement in question was
not pool and did not violae any pro-
vision of the interstate commerce act.
II will not criticize or discuss the
opinion of the court. but am willing to
state what it decided. On the first point
it decides that all ordinations which
are in restraint of trade or commerce are
prohio oited by the antitrust act. whether
in the form Of trusts or in any other form
whatever. and that antitrust act covers
and, in the opinion of the majority of the
court, was attended to cover common car
riers by railroad.
Then the next point decided by the
court is that the particular agreement
which was before the court, namely, the
agreement which constituted tine Trans
Missouri Freight Association, was an
agreement which violated the antitrust
act, because, as held by the court, it was
an agreement in restraint OF trade or COM
merce among the several States, as the
court defines tha. expression.
2 ut was admitted in the case that in
point of fact rates esta blished under the
agreement were not unreasonable; also. as
stated above, that it did not esta blish a
pool either of traffic or of earnings, and
that each company was left free to COM
pete for and to get all the business it
could; and it was also admitted that there
was no intention on the part of the COM
panies acting under it to violate the stat
ute or secure any other end than to pre-
vent rate wars and to establish and main
tain rates.
II cannot regard the decision of the ma
jority as holding anything less than that
the railroad companies cannot under the
antitrust act make any agreement, except
possibly with connecting lines, for fixing
or maintaining rates for interstate traffic.
even though such rates are reasonable
and although such incidental restraint as
such agreement might put upon COM
merce is reasonable one. The court
furthermore held that the United States
under the act might bring civil or criminal
proceedings to enforce its provisions.
r. f. Cable, president of the Rock ISL
and road, who is in New York, said to-day
in regard to the Trans Missouri decision ::
81 supposeour road will do the same as
the other roads ana withdraw from all
traffic associations do not see that un-
der the decision there is anything else to
do. The situation is rather gloomy. Rail-
road business in the West is light
James c. Carter. counsel for the Joint
Traffic Association, to-day received the
full text of the decision, and held con-
ference on the subject with George R.
Blanchard, the com missioner, and Horace
]. Hayden, the chairman OF the board of
managers of the association. Subsequently
Blanchard had talk with Chauncey M.
Depew, the chairman of the board of con-
troll of the association. A meeting of the
lawyers for the different railroads in the
ASSOCIATION will be held in few days.
after which Mr.. Depew will call a meeting
matter. Mr.. Carter will appear before the
board of managers tomorrow to advise it
as to its course in the immediate future.