The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-04-02
THE COURT AND THE RAILROADS

THE COURT AND THE RAILROADS.
The recent decision of the Supreme
Court in regard to traffic agreements
among the railroads turned chiefly on two
POINTS. The first was whether Congress
meant that the att should apply to rail
roads, and the second was whether the
words Sin restraint of trado' were to be
given the restricted sense that they have
acquired at common law, which Is
about equivalent to the meaning they
would have if the word unreasonable
were iDtarpolated SO that the phrase
should read g in unreasonable restrai 1T
of trade. " The railroads contended that
the proceedings of Congress showed that
the intention was not to apply the law to
railronds, aud to support this view they
relied chiefly upon the fact that an
amendment proposed by the House COM
mittee which explicitly provided that the
law should apply to railroads and which
was ouce attached to the bill was finally
dropped. But the court held that the
inference from the dropping of this
amendment is not necessarily that Con-
gress meant to exclude railroads from the
act. Just as legitimate an inference, the
court says, would be that Congress con-
sidered that the act applied to railroads
without this amendment and dropped 1t
because it was superfuous and unneces-
sary. In support of this latter view
the court quotes the remark of Senator
Hoar when the bill was under discussion
that transportation is rs much trade or
commerce among the several states AS the
sale Of goods in ole state to be delivered
to another, and. therefore, that it is COW
cred already by the bill as it stands"
The COURTS conclusion on this branch Of
the case is that there was nothing in the
history of the bill to show whether the
majority of the House and Senate intend
ed TO apply it to railroads or not, and
that it is left to determine the meaning
of the act from the language used in it,
The court also considers at length the
claim of the defendant that it was only
trusts that Congress meant to include,
and the claim that the meaning of the
law WAS so vague that 1T ought not TO be
held applicable to railroads, holding that
''the statute covers, and was Intended to
cover common carriers by railrond.''
The second branch Of the case is alto
gether the more important and interest
ina-whether Congress meant to forbid
all contracts in restraint of trade or only
those that wore in unreasonable restraint
of trade. The RAILROADS had contended
that the phrase 'in restraint of trade''
being phrase known to the common
law, Was to be given its common law
meaning when used in Federal statute
and hence applied only to those contracts
in restriction of trade that were unlaw-
full at common law. that is that the in
tention Of Congress was simply to forbid
contracts in unreasonable restraint
of trade. But the court says that to so
construe the statutes would be 'sto read
into the act by way of judicial legislation
an exception that is not placed there by
the law making branch of the govern
ment." If the act ought to read as the
defendants contended Congress is the
body to amend it the court says. For
the court to do it by process of judicial
legislation would, says the court "be
wholly unJustifiable.
There can DO no doubt that the decision
is broad enough to cover every possible
agreement between the railroads to main
tain rates, for every such agreement may
be In restraint of trade.