New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-02-25
TUE JOINT TRAFFIC CASE UP.
,->,rNr BEGUN IN THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT
.->o, GENERAL RICHARDS OPENS FOR THE
GOVERNMENT AND JAMES C. CARTER RE-
,,rrs IN BEHALF OF THE RAIL
soAps-A GREAT ARRAY OF

prrrs IN BEHALF OF THE RAIL
soAps-A GREAT ARRAY OF
COUNSEL PRESENT.
.- Feb c4-The Supreme Cour: OF the
s,,,as to-day began the hearing IN the
Vh'''- o. case in which the United States seeks
JON ,rreener, on the par. OF the thrty-one
70 n", ads Of the country. constituting the Joint
Ic'OrS ,,soca,ion formed in 1905, set aside and
ITRN0 I'll and void and TO have the association
o'c'"S ,,o-n operating under this agreement. The
ea@0,,sd 10 be the means Of collecting the great
case Of counsel the side OF the railroads
e. s.s been seen In the Supreme Court room for
'na' day The lis, included ex-senator George
j v,.runcs OF Vermont; L. J. Phelps ex-Min!s-
=. - england. and James {. Carter OF New-York
- whom. ~ was announced would speak.
s,,.,.o--Genersl Richards appeared for the Gov
-. Tho time FOR the presentation OF the
eco Ma. extended as 10 give the counsel for
-. railroads four hours making six hours for the
hearing 49,
-..-oerf between the railroads. and asserted ttat
- ~ con-ravention OF ;he Interstate Commerce
- d, that il sought 10 restrain trade and com
- among the several states. and 70 prevent
.-,..itfor lie declared also that II violated the
,,,i.Trust law Mr.. Richards depended largely
= ,be decision OF the supreme Court In the
-. N,,ssour! Freight association case &c prece-
go. a-e,,ine that there was practcany no differ
- .,,wecn the agreement IN that case and the
....r,en, OF the roads which were parties IN the
=, r-afrc Association. He SAID there were nine
- lines embraced In the association. and That
49, oh,ac, vas 20 cover all competitive traffic pass
-, through or from the western termni OF these
=. cd nus practically 20 control the business
=. .,. country lie said that the Board OF Mama
-. rad not only full control OF the competitive
.s-sss ~ ne various lines but they were author
"a n distribute the traffic among the parties 70
-. agreement lie argued that in this case. as in
Con y z
~ n deal with the professions OF the members OF
-. .s.ooia.ion but with the alleged violation Of
,la Law The point was whether the agreement re-
s.-sined trade and commerce and that II ala me
Government had no doubt. Indeed such an al
,ss,on was practically made by the agreement
,.ssf The Antitrust law. which the Court Eao
decided IN tne freight case applied 20 rairoaoS'
vss .be law OF the land. Compared TO the agree
-s,, q, This case he said. the agreement IN the
rams ssouri case crude and inefhcient as an
.os-r,!n,en, for sitting trade. lie then read ana
,srs6 tho articles OF cement in the TWO cases
70 sustain This point 1900
-. Traffic agreement would authorize the pool
az q. freight, IN contravsnton Of the Interstate
co--merce ac, but he said he would not go ex-
,s,s,vey into that as the article could ne re-
80 vri-ho,- innpa!-!ng the agreement The pub
H. WAS interested in the equitable DIVISION OF ran
,ead earnings but the intention CT the interstate
co-n4-ce law was 20 prevent the Sitting Of comps-
,,,,on and the establishment of compulsory rates
~ me injury OF the public. He commented AZ
length or The clause IN the agreemen; declaring
that !. was not 10 BE construed by the managers
rs a justification OF any infract'on Of the law.
su,b q clause could not. he contended. operate 10
ssv, ,hs agreement The power conferred on the
managers vas contrary 10 law; hence the whole
agreement must fall. regardless Of the saving
clause
JAMES C. CARRIERS ARGUMENT.
Mr. Carer followed for the Joint Traffic Associa-
.,or He denied the right Of the Government 10
an Injunction in the The subject was Of vast
Importance not only TO the railroads themselves.
but 10 me general business OF the country. MI
Carter sad here were four points involved in the
con,rps7y. rs follows;
Flts-Ehether inc method Of procedure by re-
s2ns 70 cor, 81 sqg{ was scene, is in
ThIs-Wicr her II the agreement is not in re-
sira n, OF trade Il is conspiracy 10 monopolize.
FouItl-W neither II embraces a poonng a, agr
Taxing 40 these points IN ihei- order. Mr. Car
Ter .oatended that the comnon-law remedy was
I'll. reasonable one. and that If the Government
s5ugh: remedy through methods IL equity II
mus; make its reason for so doing plain This
was especially true n cases Of violation OF penal
statutes. and il old principle in English and
American practice. II not sufficient. he said.
70 say as the Government did in this case. that
ire common law did not supply an adequate rem
ely He contended that the agreement was not a
Violation Of the Antitrust act in restraint OF
;rsde. lie reviewed the decision of the Supreme
Court 30 ne Trans Missouri Assoelatloh case. IN
that case the assertion was that the agreement
Ia. been decided against the agreement in the
former case M Garter said he would not at
the decision in that but he would under
take 20 show that IN this case the agreement was
NJ i. - restraint O. irade at al b, instead
o. oeiNs ~ restraint OF tIaor. me JONI Ii'i y.
Association agreement was actually Intehaei 10
mean restraint. and that the WORD only used
L. the statute as applicable TO injurious Iestia!nl
lie reviewed the cicums tances amer whlcA the
Anti-Irust law was enacted, saying II grew out
{. the Democratic taunts agaiIs. the KepdDlic ans
ha ihey were faVorable 10 IuS'7 Drcauso theI
were plOtectiOnsts; but ConsresS had 10: intcnGed
% dsnosh ali trusts-only those that were in
furious Ia their operation
NJ, Carter said. in reply 20 a question from JUS
tee Brewer. that any injury to taoe must be an
from Justice Brewer another que sion By way o.
.s IS.on 1he Staho1IG ~ coinp@ns de a ne
al the expense OF the public. Was X not intended
nat such combination should he restrained IN
ne interest OF the pubic?
Gr. Carer said he had no doubt that This con-
lo u the minds OF the legislators. and tbs feature
was dealt with by the law under the head Of
monopoly. Mr.. Carter drew the conclusion that at
,si.cOn. ana ne ga that competition was only an
,M..cen 70 trade ana was not always essential TO
.tcsssary tnat competition Should be curtaiied ia
n. w. M,t'es; Of the public Competition carried 20
-, .nos; limit must III the END aI"ays result ID
s.e Ilhc,!on OF weaker rivals by stronger ones;
, 1850 70 cneck X before y shoulu reach mat
'''h vas rot IN oerosauon OF the public Interest
EVILS OF RAILROAD WARS.
Every one knew how destructive 10 property
we're railroad wars resulting from competition.
"o Only were these wars injurious 10 stockholders.
'1' Infinitely 10 the public at large,
through the Determinations which are often sum
rIar,