New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-03-20
Joint TRAFFIC AGAIN UPHELD.
THE DECISION DIsMISSlNG THE HfN''i'i
AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION sOs-
TANNED on APPEAL.

AGAINST THE AsSONiHiiO-' ~
TANNED on APPEAL.
,ud1es Wallace and Lacombe in the united
States Circuit Court Of Appeals yesterday iosu'"'"
the hearing OF argument on Appeal III 'he sun
the United States against the Joint Traihc Assn
,a.,oo I-rited States District-Attorney Macfar-
lane concluded his argument for the Government
on Thursday afternoon. declaring that 'he oon',"N
under which the companies formed the ass
is unlawful ard should be MADE nun anu WV"
II established not only a traffic pool ne s'i', '"
q noo Of earnings as well. and violated Secuoh .
NJ the Interst ate Commerce act and the ANU "'
%, ~ 1901 The Interstate Commerce Commission
had declared the contract violation OF law
Yesterday James c. Carter and Edward j. fheips
argued the case of the Joint frame As9o0''''
Mr. Carter opened his address by explaining 10 lhe
Court the nature OF the agreement uncer "''io"
the association was formed and by describing inc
system whereby each of the companies IN the Iie'-
,ort ~ RAILWAYS over the country was related 10
Tho others He maintained that It vas essential
70 the business OF the country that rates sI'"" NC
uniform and reasonable, and that IL Shouiu ""'S'
no known exactly what those rates were MI NJ
for also dwelt on the evil Of free ana UNI
comnetition I'm railway traffic. under when oono-
tons, he maintained stao"'! W
of rates disappeared.
po,orr,ng 10 the alleged violation OF the pro-
Visions OF the Antitrust act Of 1890 MT carer
commended that there might be restraint Oh ""
o,d re, - n were not unreasonhDic 'esi"
the law did not object. If the objects ana 'e'"0'
~ contracts were reasonable. they were no, re-
,ugnant 70 law As 10 the alleged VIOLATION Vi ti'e
,.a.o.o Commerce act Mr.. Carter contehue"
.ho. tho nresent course pursued was an d''e"p'
On tho mart Of the Commission 10 turn over ~
court the functions which II should i'Se'' cA'
7, ,.as no, charged Mr.. Carter continued 'n"'
.bere was any actual division OF poor ear'nib' ~
.ho rraAsc Association: It only contenu"u Una.
been committed. In the case OF the asSooIa'.D" -
aoc,ared there was no contract of such ha'u'" d.
10 create an enforceable right Even II the IA" va
evaded as contended, 1t was not Vioid'eu ~ -"
citation In order TO take away the 'enp'a''0
comnetltion without either violating or eNduins ','
law the association had adopted means ioi ~. ~
,owanca of dfferentials. destroying the sohc'.'"s
oo,o,ee of the several roads and taking an uhues
,,ned freight and distributing 1t on the prlhcipe o.
oa,,za,,,, None Of these means vera iorpi'ue"
by law . So. maintain
Mr.. Phelps then began his argument ~ ii'd'"'i"',
ing that the agreement did not Woa'e INC i'''
l-,r,erca 40. in any particular. when he was III
Ool'iI' 1s h Judge wallace. who announced that
he and Judge Iacombe had already agreed ina o'.e
action could not be maintanea uI Wr Phelps argued
or me- action was really brough; on cominq9n-iiaw
ground and that he S he Common law
ftdpe Wallace Immediately anncu nceu tle u o,in
- tbe Cont The Interstate Commerce act couH
oI ' h ,r,,oLed in the present for number OF
reasons The United States had no right Gnder ma
90, m ennoy the method of Injunction LheIS was
ora We doubt whether the Commission ltseIl h''u LIZ
such recourse The Antitrust act was not d.ea,e
10 apply 10 railway carriers II was unnecessa ras 10
1ecida Tho question whether the agreement WIS
nooiine contract. Judge Lacombe fully conc1rreuaa d..
PTha Ioint Traffic agreement. when is IoI ~
,aars vent into effect January !. 1895, and Wthh
few DAYS thereafter United States .ostra
"er Warfarlane applied for an Injunction 10 RESTRAIN
tbe comnanies from operating under the asreelneIii
Indee Wheeler denied the application. inc ap arr a.
Soc9ded Yesterday, followed. Now the case Will DC
tatnn "a The tinted States Supreme Court