The news & observer., 1897-03-24
Sherman Act Covers Question
of Transportation.
A NOTED CASE REVERSED
A ANS-MISSOURI QUESTION IN
SUPREME COURT.
DECISION BY JUDGE PEcKHAM
The United States Tribunals Opinion
MAY Have Effect of Compelling
Traffic Agreements to be Sub
mitted to Commission.
washington Post.)

washington Post)
The Supreme court has decided the
case of the United States VS.. the Trans
missouri Freight Association against the
railroads. The opinion was rendered by
Justice Peckham and reverses the deer
sion of the court below and holds the anti
trust law of 1890 to be applicable to rail-
road transportation and the traffic agree
ment of the pool illegal.
The law officers of the government con-
slider that the effect of the decision Will
be far reaching. They think it will re-
suit in requiring that all traffic agree
ments be submitted to the Interstate
Commerce Commission. They also ex-
press the belief that it means a reversal
Of the opinion delivered in the Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
last week in the case of the Joint Iraff1c
Association, the opinion in that instance
being favorable to the railroad combina-
ton.
Justice Peckham reviewed the history
Of the case and stated the conclusion OF
the court in very few words. He said
that the bill had originally been filed by
the government for the purpose of Sc
curing the setting aside of the agreement
operating in the Southwest, which con-
stituted the association to fix rates of
transportation to which he various roads
constituting the pool should agree. The
bill was filed under the law known as the
Sherman antitrust act of 1890. The de-
PENDANTS had in their answer denied the
governments allegations in respect espe-
cially to the point of improper intent, and
upon these showings the case proceeded
to a hearing.
DECISION OF LOWER CUORT.
The court below decided that the Sher-
man act did not apply to railroads, and
therefore refused to sustain the govern
ment. 1t was also held by the lower
court that even if the act did apply, the
agreement was not one looking to the
unreasonable restraint of trade.
Continuing, Justice Peckham said that
when the case was brought into the Su-
preme Court the defendants had moved
to dismiss the appeal ON the ground that
the freight association had been dissoly
ed leaving nothing before the court, and
also on the allegation that the amount in
volved was not sufficient to justify the
consideration of the case in the Supreme
Court of the United States. These mo-
tions were both over-ruled.
Justice Peckham ssfid the mere dissolu-
ton Of the association did not determine
the question as there was still relief to be
had.
Replying to the objection that there
is no language in the antitrust act which
is sufficiently plain to indicate a pur-
pose to repeal the provisions of the in
terstate commerce act which permit the
agreement" the opinion ayers that the
interstate commerce act does not author
ize an agreement of this nature. "There
is, therefore, no repeal in the case" it
says, "and both statutes may stand, as
neither is inconsistent with the other"
SCOPE OF THE SHERMAN ACT.
The opinion takes up the assertion that
the Sherman act was aimed at only such
combinations as the Standard Oil Com
pany, the beef trust, and the whiskey
trust, and says they were not only as
sociations controlling great combinations
of capital, which had caused complaint at
the time the law was enacted, but that
there were "many and loud complaints
from some portions of the public regard
ing the railroads and the prices they were
charging for the service they rendered"
Neither is the statute" the opinion
continues, uncertain in its meaning, or
its language so vague that it ought not
to be held applicable to railroads. 1t pro-
hibits contracts combinations, &c, in
trade or commerce. Transporting COM
modities is commerce, and if from one
State to or through another it is inter-
state commerce"
Summing up on the point of applicable
ty to railroads, the court said: "WhiIe
the statute prohibits all combinations in
the form Of trusts, or otherwise the l.m-
itation is not confined to that alone. All
combinations which are in restraint OF
trade or commerce are prohibited, wheth-
er in the form Of trusts or in any form
whatever. We think, after a careful ex-
animation, that the act covers and was
intended to cover common carriers by
rail-
RAILROAD COMBINATIONS.
The court next took up the question of
the true construction, assuming that the
law applies to railroads. On this point
il said: 1.-The claim that one company
has the right to charge reasonable rates
and that therefore it has the right to en-