The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-05-17
A SUMMARY OF OPINIONS.
Decisions on the Legality of Asso-
citation Agreements.
FINDINGS IN JOINT TRAFFIC CASE.
Freedom of Contract Is ms Esscnt,,,
TO Unrestricted Commerce us
Much as Competition,
|NDlNGS IN JOINT TRAFFIC CASE.
The Railway Are

associations will be OF interest at this
time. Opinions have been rendered ON the
subject by five different courts. AS our
readers are all aware. five Justices of the
United States supreme court. constituting
majority of the court decided that the
Transmissouri Freight association agree
ment was Illegal. AT the same time four
Justices dissented and held In favor OF the
agreement. Previous to the rendering OF
that opinion there had only been found
one judge to decide against either the
Transmissouri association or the Joint
Traffic association. viz, Judge Shiras of
the circuit court of appeals. who, in Octo-
Der, 1923, dissehted from the opinions Of
Judges Sanborn and Thayer in favor OF
the Translnsssourl association There have
therefore, been SIN Judges altogether who
have held against the associations, while
ten have been in favor of them. The ten
are Justices White. Field, Gray and Shit
ras OF the United States supreme court
Judges Wallace and Lacombe OF the United
States circuit court OF appeals. second
district; Judges Sanborn aud Thayer
of the United States circuit court
of appeals third district; Judge Wheeler
of the United States circuit court, south
ern division of New York. and Judge
l.
district of Kansas. Unfortunately this
formidable consensus of the different
courts is of little use as against tue five
members of the supreme court,
The question first came into court in the
case of the United States VS.. the Trans
missouri Freight association, which was
decided by Judge Riner of the United
States circuit court for the district of Kan
sas. at Cheyenne, Wyo. on November Is.
1892, In favor of the legality of the agree
ment. The syllabus of the decision, which
We take from the Federal Reporter vol.
49, says:
/. An agreement between several com
peting railway companies and the forma-
ton of an association Hereunder, for the
purpose of maintaining Just and reasonable
rates. preventing unjust Determinations
by furnishing adequate and equal facilities
for the interchange of traffic between the
several lines, without preventing or ilic-
gally limiting competition, is not an
agreement combination or conspiracy IN
restraint Of trade in violation OF the act
of July .. 1890.
9 Nor is such an agreement in violation
OF section of such act. as tending 10 the
nionopolization Of trade and commerce.
g. Where each company, by such agree
lnent maintains its own organization rs
before. elects its own officers, delegates no
powers to the association to govern IN any
RESPECT the operations or methods OF trans
acting the routine business OF the several
competing lines. but simply requires mat
each company shall charge just and rea-
sonable rates and provides for certain
regulations in regard to changes in such
rates such or @ amo rs mo;
ia n transfer of the franchises and cor
portate powers of such companies.
4. 1t was not the intention Of, Of Gongr ,ss
TO include common carriers subject to .ne
atvtt ~
visions of the act of July ., 1890, which
lions in the form of trusts and conspira-
cies in restraint of trade,
Tho ease being taken to the United
states circuit court OF appeals. the decis;
ion of the circuit court was affirmed dana ana
rSnacr,d ON october >. 1898. By Judge san
t born Judge &c Thayer concurras, The syl-
la9gs hat ds' ,ho following G E nc5lara
,, Wv, ,,1nrp others,
! rb, contracts. combinations ana con