New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-10-25
AGAINST THE RAILROADS.
JOINT TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION CASE DE-
CIpED BY THE SUPREME COURT.
THE AGREEMENT HELD TO BE IN RESTRAINT
OF TRADE AND COMMERCE - OPINION
By JUSTICE PECKHAM-JUsTlcEs
GRAY. sHIRAs AND WHITE
DISSENT.


and against the railroads The case Is consid-
cred one OF the most important that has ever
come before the Supreme Court rot only 10 the
railroads but to the general public, because Oh
the vast railway properties represented by the
association.
Justice Peckham announced the decision ne
said that the Court could distinguish no amer
between this case and the Trans
case which was decided against the ral''oaN'
The only new point involved was as 10 '"e 'o' |
stitutonality OF the Antitrust act. Inc Cou''
had reached the conclusion that as ram oau wv
porat,ons performed duties Of a semi-puohc
character II was within the CONSTITUTIONAL po"e'
OF Congress TO regulate them as PROVIDED oy
tho Antitrust act The only question. them
was as 70 the policy OF Congress In adopting
such a measure and with questions OF poncy
| the Court he said. had nothing 10 do
The opinion. which was brief. was concurred
in by Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Harlan
Brewer Brown and Peckham. Justices Gray
Shras and White dissented. Justice Mckenna
took no part in the case. az the prosecution Oh
the Joint Traffic Association was begun Wills
he was Attorney General.
Under decision Of to-day the decisions OF the
! United States Circuit Court for the southern
/ District Of Now-York and OF the united states
! Court OF Appeals both Of which were favoraoie
I to the Joint Traf1c AsSoClatlor arr i''Ni'N
JUSTICE PECKHAMs OPINION.
Justice Peckham gives a history Of the early
stages Of the litigation and the main issues ne-
tween the Government and the associa'lon'
After pointing out the similarity between the
Trans Missouri case and the present one Inc
opinion says
oorcer,eS ue do moi see cny substantial differ
! ences between this agreement ana me on -
forth IN the TRANSIT ssouri case. In that case me
rates We're stabiished by the agreement. and an
company violating the schedule or rat -. nenaity
company could withdraw ron the ,Iis Il cor
tinueed a member II was bound 20 charge the fixed
| rates under a penalty for not doing so, IN thIs
| Nxed upon Originally in the agreement or subse-
quently recommended by the Board Of Ma1as ,o
and the failure observe their recommendations
is deemed violation OF the agreement me Only n
alternative is The adoption OF royidng for
change Of rates far as that company IS coz Or
cerned and the service Of copy thereot upon Scb US
Board Of Managers Il ia this provision "n VIII ~, -
referred to by counsel most material and I'M M
| portant and one which constitutes material ana
| important distinction between the two agreements.
The opinion takes up the consttutionality OF
the Anti Trust act as affecting railroads. Jus
tice Peckham says
It is worthy OF remark that mis- question was vas
never raised or hn'ed at upon The arg9m men ~ he
many asfue and able counsel for the transporta,
ton companies In that case raised an objection on
spide SI tha, the reasons showing the nyadity
Of the act AS construed. do not lie on the surface
! Upon the constitutionality Of the act It is now
earnestly conended that contrasts In restfnt OF
curitv or welfare OF society and that Congress Is
IN resirsnt Of trade and that the effort DO this
invalldates the act in question
POWER OF CONGRESS AFFIRMED.
! Justice Peckham comments on the fears ex-
pressed By counsel for the association that the
effec, Of these decisions would be far-reaching'
rendering illegal most business contracts or
| combinations such contracts 70 maintain
wages. contracts Of Incorporation for any line
OF business or partnership contracts This
makes quite formidable list" the opinion
states but 1t will be observed that no con-
tracts o. the nature described are before
the Court The formation of corporations has
never been regarded the opinion states, as in
the nature Of contracts in restraint Of trade.
The same is true Of partnerships Proceeding.
the opinion says:
Has not Congress. with regard 20 Interstate com
rnrrne and In the course 81 regulating f. in tire
| case Of railroad companies, the power 20 say mat
Shall restrain trade and commerce by shutting OGt
the operation OF the general law OF competition
carrier is Of a publc nature and in performing i
the carrier is also performing a certain extent
function OF government which require5 them to
perform the service upon equal terms 10 all rms
grrs and freight j. a par Of trade and commerce
| and when transported between states such com
comes 10 "A certain extent under the Jurisdiction OF
Congress by virtue OF rs power 10 regulate com
ees Of this public franchise are competing railroad
companies Tor interstate G9fnirfce We ,nitE r STr,
binatic7 among them 10y means OF which Compel
at least 10 The prohibition Of contracts relating TO
interstate commerce. which would exilngIlSin az
corporations and which would IN that way restrain
interstate trade Or commerce. . -. ..,.
We do not think that when the grantees OF TINS
public franchise are competing railroads seeking the
trsnsporation Of men and goods rom one stae
the use and management Of their property requires
erf, association for the purpose OF sitting compe-
tl,ion among themselves and Of thus Heepne theIr
wise b. under tho laws Of competition. And this -
So even though the rates provided for In the agree
ment may for the time be not more than are
reasonable They may easily and az any time os
increased. Il IS the combination OF these large ana
territory and influencing trade throughout the
The matters over which the combination extends
Ina, constitutes the alleged evil and in regard TO
which so FAR as the combination operates upon ana
restrains interstate commerce. Congress has power
10 ssf n aTd IN -. JUDGMENT of consress be
one OF the reasonable necessities for the proper
OF such necessity and propriey Unless In case of
courts might be applied TO for rehe'
Referring to the claims OF counsel regarding
the general constitutional right Of the citizen
- make contracts. and the extent OF individual
liberty under the XIVth Amendment, the opn-
ion says.
The citizen may have the right 20 make proper
rha, IS lawful contract one Which - aso ts1
s.rtiai and necessary IN carrying out MS iaWiul
nurnos4 The question which arises here Is Whetner
the contract T. a proper or lawful one W. Pr
sim. n ull not be contended that the right OF me
citizen 10 pursue any livelihood or vocation h0luueS
-, ,,..irs ~ livelihood whether lawful or un-
awful Notwithstanding the general liberty ,oI
/ ..r,,.c+ which possessed by the tlt!ZeH unueF
- Prostitution We find that there are many
/ tirde -, contracts which. while not In themselves
im,noral ar mala IN may yet be- prohibited d!
he legislation OF the States or IN certain cases Ny
-, ~ 49, ~. il one OF power