New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-03-26
COPIES OF THE FULL TEXT RECEIVED
THE TRANsMIssOCR DECISION AND THE JONI

COPIES OF THE FULL TEXT RECEIVED
THE TRANsMIssOCRI DECISION AND THE JONI
TRAFFIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS BY
1;x-JrDGE JOHN !. DILLON
Comics OF the full text Of the United states Su-
preme Court decision in the Transmssourl fre'eh'
Association case, and also OF the dissenting opih-
ion were received yesterday by James C. carter
counsel for the Joint Traffic Association George
y blanchard the commissioner OF the associa-
ton and Horace J. Hayden. chairman OF the Board
of Managers OF the association. spent good par.
of the day with Mr. Carter in the consideration OF
the decision. Subsequently Mr.. blanchard hao
talk with Chauncey NJ. Depew. chairman OF the
BOARD of Control of the association. There VIII
be a meeting in few days Of the LAWYERS lor tho
different roads in the association after whch MI.
Depew will call meeting OF the Board oi 'oii'ioi
10 consider the whole subject
II was said that Mr.. Garter would probaoE APP
near before the Board of Managers of the JOINT
Traffic Association to-day and advise the Board
as to its course in the immediate future
Ex-Judge John F. Dillon. who was one OF tho
counsel for the Transmissouri Freight ASSOCIATION
made statement in regard to the decision IN
which he said
Substantially three propositions were DECIDED
First that the PROVISIONS 0i tHe ,be nited states
against the Transmissouri Freight Association was
6rough' efH>opspop}aton by railways second that
the particular agreement OF the elgne ' uI,,nh-
panies Which constituted the Transuissouri FTeigh
Association is an agreement in restrain, OF nteF-
state trade and commerce and therefore Vi9 1birG
me provisions of the Antitrust Act, ana. lhliC
that the United states has standing in coupl
Of equity under that act TO enj9n the violation oil
viii NOT critcise or discuss the opinion OF the
on the first point it decides that all combinations
which are in restraint o, tade or wb@h@r in the
form OF trusts in any other form whateNNer aru
tdn of the majority Of the was intended to
cover common carriers by railroad &, tho, tho
particular agreement which was before me Sou i
Transmissouri Freight Association-was an agree
ment which violated the Antitrust Act because
straint Of trade or commerce among the several
States" as the Court defines that expression:
.n restraint Of trade is whether they reason.
able or unreasonable nr s TctrSn
trade but if such restraints are reasonable under
Otherwise not The majority of the court overruled
the contention Of the raw2{ cGmp pan
act; which simply forh!ds contracts in restraint
OF trade" without defining what was meant
thereby. G.. 49,. .. ,,.,o,
the broad language of tine statute, which says that
every contract etc. in restraint OF trade or COM
merce among the several states is Illegal saying
tracts. the Court must hold that al contracts S
such contracts are reasonable or unreasonable, are
Illegal. 1t was held in this case to be no answer
and might promote and increase trade instead Of
! cannot regard the decision of the majority as
holding anything less than that railroad companies
cannon, uHuei the 10 ~, iiN oHS
mem rates for interstate trafRc even
though such rates are reasonable, and although
such incidental restraint as such agreement Nigh:
The Court Furthermore held that the United
States under the act might bring civil or criminal
The great object Of an agreement the part of
railroad companies is not to secure
anS evils Iai that ow from secret rebate rate cutting
ss na rate ha end Mhn such ro
nuled there is n9ihine 10 protect the railway com.
cutting and rate wars except the sef-interest OF
me me Cdmmegce act which require Notice
OF raising lowering rates. How far this will
In view Of the Importance Of stable rates and
the evils Of ratG,-s,uI'ng' regard the practical
not only 70 railway companies Indd but to the public
That could be and ought 10 be in the form Of an
Tnensg a1 % 1Icpstat commerce 1g rsnt ano 10
set them aside = found against the public in
terest.
Frederic W Whi,ridge. who is counsel for many
railroad corporations, said:
The decision Of the Supreme Court is undoubted-
iy very important. II means. for one thing, that
no set OF railroad managers can sit around table
and agree 20 charge q certain fixed rate traffic
or divide Il In certain way. II they do II Is
penal offence under the Sherman Antitrust law
OF 1922 Put now about the labor organiza ions
the knights Of Labor The American Railway
GERS and Firemcn and the other railroad labor or
ganiza tions? Doesn't the law in regard TO nspira-
20 them under this decision? Logically IL does for
they the best regulators and the most binding
upon their members Of any OF the existing trusts
Unlike the railroads they not incorporated
They should be incorporated Tho decision how
ever certainly applies TO them.
r. f. Cable president OF the Chicago Rock ISL
and and Pacific Railroad who IS In NewYork said
Yesterday IN reference 10 the Transm.ssour dec-
sion; II suppose our ROAD Will do the same as The
other roads, and withdraw from all traffic associa
tious J do no; see. under the decision, that there
is anything else 10 do. The situation Ia rather
gloomy Railroad business IN the West is light
The outlook for winter wheat, however. IS good"
Representatives of The II. Il. Clafiln Company
Mills & Glib and other wholesale drygoods houses
have asked the Board of Managers Of the john
Traffic Association to make special rates twice
year FOR the Of dryGoods buyers coming tC