The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-03-27

road rates unregulated competition ID 'no
rfolInc parent OF unjust discrimination,
I'm, wa clearly cannot have rts"ateu
connection without some form Oh "s,'
mont. and Il does not seem probaple ina.
tho Sunreme Court Intended TO say that
any form OF agreement to maintain ,he
published rates Is necessarily illegal
Further on. II adds:
"It seems TO us nonsensical TO assume
that the Court meant 10 say tnat any
agreement which Is binding on the COM
NAMES restrains trade and commerce, pc
cause II restraints their control over theT
own rates
And then II says:
For. rate-cutting obviously means
contest. not for the business Of the men
who deal I'm single carloads Of freight.
but for the business OF those VINO re-
ouire scores and hundreds OF cars. Hence
the inevitable revival of the reign OF re-
bates and freight determinations with
all its attendant evils
It'll the case brought by the Attorney
General against the Joint Traffic Asso-
citation Is reviewed by the Supreme Court
i'm the same vein as the case OF the Trans
Missouri Freight Association, ana par
alleism between the points at issue IN
both has thus been established, We shan
hesitate to accept the opinion delivered
by Judge Peckham as putting an end 10
all possibility Of n contract agreement
between railroads to maintain rates. Such
a conclusion we should regard as dis
aster Of the first magnitude. because, as
experience has shown. in default or
agreement among the railroads them
selves the Interstate Commerce Law has
but little influence I'm maintaining the
equality of freight charges TO Dor
row the words of Colonel Walker, that
law has I'm many ways been beneficial 10
business interests but I'm its present form
there is little value now remaining be-
yond the assertion of important general
principles: while in some respects IL -
more prejudiciai than beneficial II de-
mands both steadness OF rates and ac-
tive competition. things which, as Judge
Cooley once said. necessarily kill each.
Now. II the Supreme Court is 10 range
itself on the side OF active competition
I'm the sense that every shipper Will be left
free 10 ext0rt from the railroads as low
a rate as he can, there Is plainly nothing
save a radical revision of the law between
the transportation business and chaos.
The meaning OF all this is that under
modern conditions unregulated competi-
Ton IS utterly destructive 10 al interests
affected and that railroads must be left
to make agreements amongst themselves
by which they can place restriction upon
competition.
We entirely agree with the Journal OF
Commerce in It's view OF the case. But
the question arises why docs not its
argument apply with just as much force
TO the case Of all other parties? Why
shall not manufacturers and merchants
have the same right TO pool their issues
that railroads should have. according to
the Journal Of Commerce?
The Journal Of Commerce once very
improperly insinuated that the views Of
The Times upon questions Of this sort
were controlled by its interests. We viii
not be so personal, not TO say insulting.
as to ask it now if its interest in rail-
road stocks and bonds have not inilu-
enccd its view somewhat in the present
case? They are certainly good argu-
ments for the advocates Of trusts"