The Monte Vista journal., 1898-10-29
COURT DECISIONS.
CORPORATIONS MEET DEFEAT.


5aiesA ssasss sspesAs coars sDashss the
cnae Peal s.A ehs li,sssas sspssos
Cssrs Decides Asaisss the Fsiiaaaa
Washington, Oct. A.-Tbe United
the Joint Tranac Association railroad
against the railroads.
The case was considered one Of the
most important that has ever come
from the Supreme Court, not only to
the railroads, but to the general public,
critics represented by the trafic asso-
cIatiOn.
The association was formed Eovem-
ber 10, 1895. by thirty-one railroads
representing the great trunk lines and
their network Of branches. The pur.
pose Of the association, az stated in
the articles OF agreement. was ITO es-
tablish and maintain reasonable and
just rates, fares and regulations on
state and interstate trafic"
similar association. ON a similar
scale was formed among southwestern
roads. known rs the TransmIssOuri As
ISOLATION.
These associations were soon attack
ed in the courts on the ground that
they were In violation OF the Sherman
antitrust law and also Of the inter-
commerce law. The Transmissouri
first reached the United states Su-
preme Court. where In notable opin-
ion. the court held that the association
was Illegal being In effect, a comblna-
tiOn In restraint Of trade and COM
merce and therefore violative Of the
ANTITRUST law.
This opinion was by a divided bench,
the division being close. viz: Chief JUS
tice Fuller and Justices Harlan. Brew.
sr. Brown and Peckham holding the
traffic association illegal, while Jus.
tees Field. Gray. Shiras and White
filed n dissenting opinion upholding
the association. Soon after this decis-
ion, Justice Field gave place to Justice
Mckenna.
Although the Missouri case was con-
sidered somewhat OF test, yet the
Joint Traffic Association prepared TO
make stubborn contest In support OF
Its existence. The case against II was
begun January Z. 1896, In the United
States Circptt Court for the southern
district Of New York. the United
States being complainant and the nt-
torney general directing its course.
The ease went against the government
In the lower courts, the Circuit Court
lIsmIssing the bill. md the Court Of
Appeals affirming the dismissal. The
government appealed TO the United
States Supreme court.
An exceptionally brilliant array Of
counsel appeared for the association
and several railroads. Including ex-
Senator Edmunds. James e. Carter
and +. J. Phelps. Solicitor General
richards filed the brief for the gov
crnment. The main contention Of the
government was that the traffic agree
nent is combination to prevent COM
petition. thus constituting contract
In restraint OF trade or commerce.
The answer OF the association main
tained the legality OF the 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 discrimination.
Justice Peckhnm announced the de-
cision. He said that the court could
distinguish no difference between this
aud that OF the Transmlss0uri case de-
clded one year nEO. which was de-
cided ngninst the railroads. He said
the only new point involved was ns
TO the constitutlonnlity Of the anti.
trust act.
The court hnd reached the conclu-
sion that ns railroad corporations per-
formed duties OF II semi-publIc charac-
ter. II WIS within the constitutional
power OF Congress To regulate them
MS provided by the antitrust act. The
only question was ms TO the policy OF
Congress in adopting such u measure
and as to questions Of policy. the
court. he said. had nothing TO do.
The opinion. which was brief, was
concurred In by Chief Justice Fuller
and Justices Harlan. Brewer. Brown
and Peckham. Three Justices dis
sentcd. namely. Justices Gray. Shirns
and White. Justice Mckennn took no
pnrt In the casc. as the prosecution Of
the Joint Traffic Association was b.-
gun while he was attorney general.
After Justice Peckhnm had an
nonnced the opinion. Justice Harlan
verbally expressed with some evidence
Of satisfaction Ills concurrence on the
same ground. he said. as that set forth
In the Trnnsmissoiiri cnse.
thuEt VIZ usNIHtou toNluy vnc ufrin-
Ions OF the United States Circuit Court
for the Southern district Of New York.
aud OF the United States Court OF An.
lsenls. both of which were favorable.
TO the Joint Traffic Association. are re.
versesl.
Chicago. Oct. N.-The Supreme
Court Of Illinois decided to-day that
the action Instituted by ex.Attofpry
General Maurice r. Moiouey during
his term OF ONCE TO compel the Pull.
man Palace Car Company to rpstrtct
iis operations TO charter limitations
should stand. and remanieti the caue
To the Circuit Court Of Cook county.
where II will now be tried.
Ex-Attorney General Nolopey had
contendrtl that the Pullman Cotnpeuv
was Incorporated simply for the pur.
In.e Of making. selling and leasing
railroad and street cars.
His object wna TO c0mpet the com.
i'any 10 retire from the real estate.
gas. water. beating. brickmaklus and
other enterprises conducted by II n
the town Of Pullman and In ('hicaro
TIE case was fought by counsel for
the company nnsi was thrown out bv
The Circuit Court. Counsel for the
state dcmurred and an appeal was
taken 10 the Supreme Court. which
WINS decided In favor Of the former ~.
torncy general.
Among the properties puilman.s
Palace Car Company In charged vrIth