The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-10-27
DANGER OF MISUNDERSTANDING
the JOINT TRAFFIC. CASE

rrn,ess the terms OF The decision MADE
last Monday by the Supreme Court OF
The United States In the most Important
,o,nt trafic case. and all that relates 10
the decision, are carefully attended 10
the public runs great risk of getting an
incorrect ioea OF the decision, which may
rssult in great confusion and much pos
sible evil TO understand the occasion
exactly there must be a review OF the
leading facts connected with 1t.
The antitrust act Of Congress pro-
VICES that every contract in restraint OF
trade or commerce among the several
States is Illegal and void" With that as
the law, al the railroads west Of the
Mississippd river entered into written
agreement whereby charges on traffic
we're regulated. The United States
charged that this agreement was a CON
tract In restraint Of trade among the
States and was VOID When the case was
argued in the Supreme Court the counsel
for the railroads said that the word
"every" could not be given its literal
interpretation, but that the Court must
suppose Congress meant to forbid those
restraints OF trade only which were ''un-
reasonable" This argument, Of course
conceded that the contract in question
operated as a restraint OF trade but that
Il was only reasonable restraint. But
The Court. in it's decision made March
q. 1897, said the wording OF the act was
.avery" and that It was not authorized
10 read he word unreasonable into
the act.
FOR several years The Times had been
discussing the general subietct Of con-
tracts in restraint OF trade in connec-
ton with the general subject Of trusts
and the proposition had been advanced
that no contract between parties which
had n view, bona dde the Advancement
of the interests Of the parties 10 the con-
tract. could be one in restrain. OF trade
in the legal sense Of that ph-as al
though IL might place some sort OF re-
strictions upon some sorts of trade, but
that 10 make such contract one in re-
straint Of trade in the legal sense OF that
phrase. the parties TO 1t must have been
animated BY an evil or malicious pur-
nose towards some one else. That TINS
was OF the very essence Of the citizens
r.xht OF free contract ana any other
view would place an abridgen snt upon
tho freedom OF contract that would be the
mos. intoleraole tyranny, and forbidden
by the Constitution Of the United States
About me time the SUPREME Court
made its decision of March. 1881, the sub
atanes OF those articles was thrown TO-
eetner IN the FORM 81 a pamphlet by Mr.
w L Royal. which no was about 10
-unl.sh. Seeing that ,ae Courts desision
wen. IN Direct Antagon!fm TO MS view,
but that the view had not been suggested
in the argument OF the Gaze or consid-
cred By the Court IN it's opinion. Mr.
Royal modified his pamphlet so as to
make It meet the arguments presented
by the Court ana published it in April.
1897 under the title Of The Pool and
the Trust: 4 Review Of the Supreme
courtn rrsric Decision" pointing out in
Il that his proposition had not been sug-
ees,ed to the Court or considered by it.
he a, once--in April. iS35-sent this para-
phlet TO each member OF tho Court and
TO each OF he lawyers engaged in the
case.
Directly afterwards another case was
brought To- the supreme Court involving
preclso.y the same questions as were In
yolved In the preceding one. and 1t wa'
argued in March. 1895. 1t Is the case de-
c,dol last Moncay The same lawyers
argued II. ana. abandoning their former
admission that the contract restrained
trade. but only reasonably. they adopte.
Mr. Royairs proposition that no contrac
eon,a restrain trade unless there was al
syi, motive All Of their briefs are found
"a on Mr.. Royals proposition but thel
Give him no credit for it
The Court has not met the proposition
a the decision lust mado. but 1t has en-
t,rsly shiftsa TIE position which It tool
IN the csc,sion OF March. 1897. 1t does no
now cay Il 10 required to nod every