The Monticellonian., 1898-10-28
.FAR- REACHING DECISION.
The Government Wins Its Case Against the Railroads of the
 Joint Traffic Association.
"A CONTRACT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE" "

l That was the Main Contention of the Gov
 ernment in the Case. It BeIng Contended
 that the Agreement of the Railroads
 was Combination to Prevent Competi- ton Among Common Carriers.
 Washington, Oct. 25.-The United States supreme court decided the joint trathe association railroad case i'll fa- vor of the United States, and against the railroads.
 i ,.ost Impo ttant Case.
 The ease is considered one of the most important that has ever come from the supreme court, not only to the railroads, but to the general pub lie, and because of the vast railroad properties represented by the Joint Traffic association. The association was formed on November f9, 1895, by 31 railways, representing the great trunk lines and their net work of branches. The purpose of the associa- ton, Us stated in the articles of agree mcnt. was ito establish and maintain reasonable and just rates, fares and regulations on state and interstate traffic.
 A similar association, on smaller scale, was formed among southwest ern roads. known as the Transmits. souri association.
 Alleged Violation of the Anti-Frust Law.
 These associations were soon ate tackled in the courts on the ground laat they were in violation of the sherman antitrust law, and also of th~ interstate commerce law. The transmissouri first reached the United States supreme court, where. in a no- table opinion. the court held that the association was illegal, being in ef- feet q combination in restraint of 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, Broker, Brown and Peckan holding the traffic association illegal, while Justices Field, Gray. Shiras and White filed dissenting opinion upholding the association. Soon after this de- eision Justice Field gave place to Jus tice McKenna.
 ih Contest n Stubborn One.
 Although the Missouri case was con. l sidered somewhat of a test, yet the Join 3Falhe association prepared to make q stubborn contest in support of its existence. The case against it was begun on January 7, 1896, in the Unit ed States circuit court for the south ern district of New York. the United States being the complainant and the 1 attorney general directing it's course 1 The case went against the government il. the lower courts, the circuit court dismissing the bill, and the court ot appeals affirming the dismissal. The 1 government appealed to the United States supreme court. exceptionally brilliant array of counsel appeared fol the association and the several rail- roads including ex-Senator Edmunds James (. Carter and F. J. Phelps.
 The Governments Case.
 Solicitor-General Richards filed tn. brief for the government. The main contention of the government was that ildlilc agreement IS d CoIlDlHd tlOu lc prevent competition. thus constituting Q contract in restraint of trade oI commerce. The answer of the associa. ton maintained the legality of tn. agreement, on the ground that the vast needs of commerce require joint action, and that such action insures uniform and just rates and prevents secret and unjust discriminations
 Three Justices Dissented.
 The opinion, which was very brief, was announced by Justice Peckham, and was concurred in by Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Harlan, Brewer, Brown and Peckham Three justices dissented, namely, Justices Gray, shiras and White. Justice McKenna took no part in the case.