The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-03-23
THE HEARING POSTPONED,
Commodity Tariff Will Come In
March %.
DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT,
Antitrust LAW of 1880 to lie A,,,,-
cable to Traffic Agreement
Of the Pooi-Notes.
ION BY THE SUPREME COURT.

'"' "S' s'a'cu lew Jays since that
in all probability tn, date would be changed
when the hearing of arguments in refer.
ence to circulars 1893 and SsS OF the rail-
road commission would he heard The
following gives the date of the hearing.
Austin. Texas March 20.-It is hereby
ordered that circular No. $685. dated March
s, and circular No 39S, dated March ~
1877, In which notice is given by this COM
mission OF a hearing on the subject of rates
for the transportation of sundry cominodi-
ties by railroads between points in Texas
be amended by changing the date of the
hearing from March %, as fixed by circular
No. 39S, to Monday, March 20, 1897, upon
which date the consideration OF the matters
embraced In circulars Nos. 1893 and Ses will
commence and continue from day to DAY
until such matters are disposed Of
This action is taken in response to re-
quest for postponement of the hearing
presented to the commission ly the railroad
companies of the State
important supreme Court Decistou,
Washington, March 22--The supreme
court has decided the case of the United
States VS.. the Trans Missouri Freight asso-
citation, against the railways. The opinion
was rendered by Justice Peckham and re-
verses the decision of the courts below
the antitrust law of 1890 to be applicable
to railway transportation and the traffic
agreement of the pool.
Justice Peckham reviewed the history
of the case and stated the conclusions of
the court in very few words. He said
that the bill had originally been filed by
nj fprt IN ,.g 1T,
the setting aside OF the agreement operat-
Ing in the southwest which constituted
the association to fix rates OF transporta-
ton 10 which the various roads CONSTITUTE
ing the pool should agree The bill was
filed under the law known as the Sherman
antitrust act of 1880. The defendants
had in their answer denied the govern
nents. allegations In respect to the point
OF improper intent and upon these show
ings the case proceeded TO hearing. The
court below decided that the Sherman act
Gid not apply TO railways and therefore
refused to sustain the government. IL was
held by the lower court that even II the
act did apply the agreement was one look
iuG to the unreasonable restraint Of
trade.
Continuing Justice Peckham said that
when the case was brought into the SUI
preme court the defendants had moved to
dismiss the appeal ON the ground that the
freight association had been dissolved.
leaving nothing before the court, aud also
on the allegation that the amount involved
was not sufficient to Justify the consider
alton OF the case in the supreme court.
These motions We're both overrued by the
supreme court decision announced today.
Justice peckham said the mere dissolution
of the association did not determine the
question, us there was still relief TO be
had. Taking up the case on its merits he
said the court had reached the conclusion
that the Sherman act covers the question
OF railway transportation and that the
agreement between various roads is within
the prohibition OF the act. Hence the de-
cieion OF the lower court which was favor
able 10 the railway companies was reversed
and the case reinanded.
Justices Field, Gray, Shiras and White
dssented
Justice White delivered the dissenting
opiuiOu.