The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1898-10-27
To Be an Organization in Re,
stlaint Of Trade and There
fore Illegal.
Constitutionality of the Sherman
Antitrust Law Fully
Upheld.
Opinion by Peckham, Four Other
Judges Concurring, and Three .
Dissenting. -..

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25.-The Unite
States supreme court decided the Join
Traffice Association railroad case i
favor of the United States and agains
the railroads.
The case is considered one of the mos
important that has ever come before tn
supreme court, not only to the railroads
but to the general public, and becaus
of the vast railwayo properties repre-
scented by the traffic association. Tn
association was formed on Nov. 10, 1898
by 81 railways representing the grea
trunk lines and their network O
branches. The purpose of the associa
ton as stated in the articles of agree
reasonable and just rates, fares and reg
u1ations on state and interstate traffic.
A similar association, on smaller
scale, was established among South
western roads, known as the TRANSMITS
souri, association.
Violated the Sherman Law.
These associations were soon attacked
in the courts on the ground that they
We're in violation of the Sherman anti
trust law, and also of the interstate COM
merce law. The Trans Missouri first
reached the United States supreme
court where, in a notable opinion. the
court hell that the association was lille
gal, being in effect a combination in re-
straint oe trade and commerce, and
Therefore violative of the antitrust law
This opinion was by a divided bench,
the division being very close viz: Chief
Justice Fuller and Justices Harlan,
Brewer, Brown and Peekham holding
the traffic association illsgal, while JUS
tees Field, Gray, Shiras and White
filed dissenting opinion upholding the
association. Soon after. this. decision
Justice Field gave placeto' Justice Nc
Kenna.
Made Stubborn Contest.
t Although the Missouri case was con-.
sidered somewhat of a test-.yet the, ,gaint
Traffic association prepared t1 makes a.,
COllSSO III SIipireslh IN lCEs
istence. The case against 1t Was begun
ON Jan. 7. 1886, in the United sStateSei--
cult court for the Southern. district OF
New York, the United States, being,
complainant and the attorney general
directing its course. The case went.
against the government in the NaMez'
courts. the circuit Diminishing the bin
and the court of appeals affirming the
dismissal The government appealed ta,
the United States supreme court An
exceptionally brilliant array OF counsel
appeared for the association and the'
several railroads, including ex-senator
Edmunds, James c. Carter and E. J.
Phelps. Solicitor General Richards
fled the brief for the government.
The main contention of the govern
ment was that the traffic agreement is
a combination to prevent competition,
thus constituting a contract in restraint
of trade and commerce. The answer OF
the association maintained the legality
of the association on the ground that the
vast needs of commerce require joint
action. and that such action insures uni
form and just rates and prevents secret
and unjust determinations.
Decision by Peckham.
Justice Peckham announced the de-
cision. He said that the court could
distinguish no difference between this
case and that of the Trans Missouri case
decided a year ago, which was decided
against the railroads. He said the only
new point involved was as to the con-
stitutionality of the antitrust act. The
court had reached the conclusion that
as railroad corporations performed du.
ties of semi-public character, it was
within the constitutional power OF con.
press to regulate them as prvided by the
ianti-tr act. The only question the1
was as to the policy of congress IN adopt
ing such measure and as to questions
of policy, the court, he said, had moth
ing to do.
The opinion, which was very BRIEF
was concurred in by Chief Justice Full
Ter. and Justices Harlan, Brewer, Brown
and Peckham. Three justices dissented
namely, Justices Gray, Shiras AM
White. Justice McKenna took no par
IN Uno Case, do UHC PAoSSSeeoAOAA ~ -
Joint Traffic association was bagu
while he was attorney general.
Live Stock Exchange Exempt
Justice Peckham also announced tn
courts opinion in cases against the Kan
sas City Live Stock Exchange ,operatin
at Kansas City in Western Missouri
The government prosecuted under tn
antitrust law. The supreme cou1
holds that the association does not com
under the antitrust law. Justice Hal
Ian, in dissenting opinion, declare
that such commissions We're rings {
syndicatss, which if extended to OF
sugar, lumber and other staples, woul
place the commerce of the country undo
the control Of few rings and synd
Gates.