The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-06-03
FRIDAY. JUNE 3. 1898.
THE JOINT TRAFFIC CASE.

THE JOINT TRAFFIC CASE.
The Supreme Court Of the United States
adjourned last Tuesday for the term
thet IS. until next October-without de-
Gliding the joint traffic case. This seems
TO be a very trite and simple announce
,nent. and yet it may involve the most
far-reaching consequences Of any event
that has happened in long time. To
make the matter plain. We will state the
leading facts.
A few years back the railroads OF the
country. finding flat competition had be-
come 80 fierce that 1t was destroying all
competition. decided to form themselves
into two pools and apportion the bust
ness Of transportation equitably amongst
themselves. All the railroads west Of the
Missouri river were formed into one as
sociation called the Trans-Missouri AS
ISOLATION. and all east Of that river were
formed into another association. with
Headquarters at New York, called the
Joint Traffic Association.
What is called the antitrust act Of
Congress provides that every contract
combination in the form of trust or Nthcr-
wise or conspiracy in restraint of trade
or commerce among the several States or
with foreign nations is hereby declared
10 be Illegal"
The United States attacked the Trans
Missouria Association in the courts as a
combination in restraint of trade. and on
the I'D of March. 1891 the Supreme Court
of the United States decided that 1t was
a combination in restraint of trade and
unlawful and void under the act of Con-
gress. The case was argued for the rail-
roads by ex-senator Edmunds, Hon. Il.
] Phelps, our former Minister to Eng
land. and Hon. James c. Carter, Of New
York. The argument submitted by them
was that the act intended 20 forbid only
those contracts in restraint of trade that
PUG UNREASONABLE restraints upon
trade. But the court replied that the
language Of the act was "every,' and
that II was not authorized to read the
made tremendou sensation when 1t was
announced, because it was easy to see
that under It Congress and the State
Legislatures had complete control over
the matter Of combinations between men
for Joint industrial action, and it was
plain that the prejudice against trusts
would lead legislative bodies into ex-
IRENE action that would produce a pro-
digious and injurious influence upon es-
tablished business.
For four or five years before this deci-
ison was made The Times. in a series Of
articles written by William L. Royal,
ject of industrial combinations was mis-
understood. and that no industrial COM
bination was opposed TO the principles
OF our institutions unless the parties to
it were actuated by an evil motive. even
though they contemplated injury to others
as means Of benehtting themselves.
When the courts decision was an
nounced Mr.. Royal collected all Of these
form OF u pamphlet, which he published
in 1897. sending copies at once TO all the
judges of the Supreme Court and to the
counsel who had argued the case. In that
pamphlet ne argued that the law had
completely miscarried. That the counsel;
who argued 1t had conceded that the con-
trait IN question was restraint upon
trade though not an unreasonable one
whereas the point should have been made
that no combination could be restraint
upon trade in a legal sense Of that ex-
preston II there was no evil motive
even II il did put some sort Of restric-
lions upon some sort OF trade. and that
che true ground upon which the case
should have been put was that
no such combinations were or could
be made unlawful. This convention
opened one OF the widest and greatest
questions that the jurisis and political
economists have ever had TO deal with
since It meant that all men have a natu-
sal rlght--of which government cannot
deprive them-so DO In concert and to-
eeiher whatever any one man may do by
himself n the combination seeks its own
goot only ana Is not animated by evil
intern towards others.
About the time the Supreme Court de-
. cided the Trans Missouri case the United
States Court OF Appeals in New York
passed upon the joint traffic agreement
ard ito deelslon was az once appealed to
ths ss>prems Court. bringing tho whole