Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1897-04-09
ALL BROKE UP.
CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE.

"If 1t shall now De seen tnat oiSahiHeo Pr
vate capital is not, by its boards of directors
acting in corporations, capable of reasonably
and safely conducting interstate railway trans
portation, aided by such help in administration
as the energetic interstate commerce commits
sion can give, then socialism will be heard in
an attempt to show that only organized, polt-
ical government can do the work, as 1t now
does in so many European countries, and as
the Populists insist must be done in the United
States. by government ownership of agencies
in public use:
Aldace F. Walker, chairman Of the board of
directors of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Railroad company, was asked today tor his
views on the supreme court decision in the
transmissouri case.
"Ata time when the air was full of courage,
when business was increasing and values were
advancing, returning confidence has received
shock lik clap of thunder from clear SKY IN
the decision of the supreme court sub]ecting
railroads to the antitrust law and giving to the
law a new and unexpected construction. Our
railroads are our greatest industry. Their sue
cess is the surest criterian of commercial pros
perity. Their financial collapse would be the
severest commercial misfortune that could betall
our country.
"This decision has come as profound SUR
prise to railroad officials and counsel. The
railroads have never conceived that they were
subject to the antitrust law. Courts have de-
cided that they were not. They have been SUBJ
iected to congressional regulation and control
by an entirely distinct series of statutes, form
ing what is known as the interstate commerce
law. The argument of the supreme court in
support of the claim that railroads, though not
mentioned in the antitrust law, are subject
thereto, is long and alludes to many consider
atoms.
"It was shown to the court by the journal of
congress that the bill, in precisely its present
form, was reported by the judiciary committee
of the ,ss1aate, passed that body, and was under
consideration in the house. Mr.. Bland offered
ad amendment; Which the house accepted max
ing railroads ject to the bill. The senate &C
cepted the amendment, with certain changes
The house refused 20 concur in the changes.
"A
adoption, their report stating that the only OBJ
ject of the original bill was the control OF trusts,
and that the amendment extended the scope OF
the act so to include transportation.
"The house rejected the report of the COLI
terence committee, and adhered to the original
language of the Bland amendment. second
conference committe reported in favor of drop
ping the entire question in controversy. There
upon, both houses passed the bill as first drawn.
"This history shows that congress deliber-
atey and Understandings abandoned the idea
of bringing the subject of transportation under
the control of the act. The recent opinion
omits to recite these convincing facts, though
stating that one senator, in speech, regarded
that subject as included in the law.
Coming now to the construction of the anti
trust act section, section prohibits agree
ments in restraint of trade (of course, under
the interstate commerce clause of the constitu-
tom section prohibits monopolies. The
act defines neither restraint of trade nor mo-
uopoly.' It has been the general understand
ing of counsel, and the inferior courts uniform
w have so decided, that we must look to the
cpmmonIlaw for definitions of the phrases here
EMPLOYED; that is, to the bodyof well-considered
cases on those subjects in England and America.
It was believed that the act was, in substance,
the extension of the federal jurisdiction over
sbjects previously controlled by the states