New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-03-29
RESPONSIBILITY FOR RATE WARS.

The dissenting opinion by Justice White, con-
CURED in by Justices Field, Gray and Shiras in
the Transmissour case certainly commends il
self TO common-sense. even though it be con-
coded that the judgment of the court as deliv
cred by Justice Peckham accords with strict
construction OF the law. 1t is by no means I'M
probable however, that IN the end the strict
construction of the statute by the majority Of
the court may rebound TO the general good
upon the principle enunciated by General Grant
that the best way TO get rid of bad law is to
enforce It, If 1t be found that strict cOnstruc-
ton Of the law puts under It's ban every agree
ment or combination by which merchants regu-
late their relations with each other or working
mems unions seek TO regulate wages or hours Of
labor. 1t Is certain that we shall not have
10 wait long for its radical amendment or repeal.
In that case we shall have learned another les
son In oyernment illustrating the dangers Of
hasty legislation inspired by half-thinkers
demagogues and cranks. Granted that trusts
are an evil, as fostering monopoly and restrain
ing legitimate enterprise and trade, it by no
means follows that political blacksmiths can
destroy them by sledgehammer legislation
without doing vastly more harm than benefit to
the business interests of the country 1t may
under natural laws than under statutory re-
strlctions and restraints.
However that may be, one thing Is certain
the owners and managers Of railway property
cannot afford to wait for the remedial legisa-
ton which the Supreme Court decision has rem
dered necessary. They certainly cannot If what
some OF them have been saying about the i'm
m,nence OF rate wars and their rulnous effects
81 tha try ic frllQ
idle now to talk about the reasonableness and
Justice Of the opinion of the minority or the
court or the disasters threatened by the judg-
ment rendered by bare majority of the JUS
tees That Is sheer waste Of time. The rail-
way managers are confronted by condition
which, II their own misgivings are well founded
demands their most serious consideration. No
matter what they may think, or how lawyers
may differ as to its soundness or unsoundness
the Supreme Court decision Is final 1t is law
and must be so recognized They must adapt
themselves to 1t and conduct their business In
accordance with the Interpretation Of the Court
The necessity for It's amendment or repeal
seems obvious and urgent, but modification or
repeal takes time and can only come by slow
processes. Meanwhile, If we are TO believe
the representatives Of the railway interests who
have spoken on the suDJect, there ~ uansei
that a slashing Of rates will begin which will
result In widespread disaster unless steps are
taken Immediately to avert 1t.
The Tribune has taken the position that there
is no real necessity for any such outbreak; that
though It be an enormously difficult task. 1t Is
possible to prevent It; that the responsibility for
II and for the impairment Of values and democrat
zation OF business resulting from It will be upon
the railway managers themselves and no one else
and that they have only to determine to maintain
rates and keep faith with each other and with
the public 10 avert disaster and restore conf
dence. We are told that this is easy to say, but
impracticable In fact, because of the vast num-
Der Of corporations concerned, their wide ramifi
cations and conflicting interests, and the impOs
sbiity OF harmoniz'ng SO many divergent Opn-
ions and policies. The difficulties in the way are
obvious and not denied. But why should It be
lmpossiblei The case may not be entirely