New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-02-26
1o1NT TRAFFIC HEARING.
,,urSr IN THE UNITED STATES sU.
" PREME COURT CLOSED
-op EpMuNDs AND EX-MINlsTER
SPEAK IN BEHArF OF THE RAIL
poAps AND soLicIToR-GENkRAL
RICHARDS ANSWERS FOR
THE GOVERNMENT.


.,.c,on. Feb. 2s.-The argument on the JOINT
Traffic vs. court to-day. Ex-senator Edmitr6s
states su' ,e,ker He appeared on behalf Of the
vas the NJ, suc,ng his remarks by an analysis OF
raaToaos' ,oc.s agreement He said that previous
the ass into this compact the roads which DC
20 10 It had hled their schedules OF rates
came p Interstate Commerce commission ana 'he
with the -. then specified had beer accepted as
rates s ssonable The objec' OF tho agreement
Just ana - secure Justice and fair play among the
Vas oH' 40 the public AT large. all being Interested
ROADS S ,,,forrn and stable rates. The Inter
IN se'..,erce law required that the rates should
saw ond reasonable. that patrons should ne put
De L.! ~ equality that localities snouio not oe
On ,r.Inatea against that there should oe equany
:. treatment. All THESE 'ea"'e
,.,,, Traffic contract
Hs ~ -,,,,.s awelt upon the Importance OF proper
A' .,.- between connecting lines. and said that
eVIu-eerent complied fully with the iegal require
!" concerning them. He contendcd tha' ~ was
~, .. the duty Of the judiciary 10 cohsH"e u,e
81 ~ all statutes so as TO make 'hem appii-
-. 20 varying conditions FOR instance ~ va ~
cav ,soa thai the trainers OF the Interstate Com
q -. .opld not be supposed TO have intended
nelOe ,sa coronacts between railroads which were
"..,,ivs q, the purposes Of the law iseH' me
.tTrust law was critically eNornineu' n'u VIZ
",s,,on was made that the Court WIN great
s,-e,y could review us oeclsioh III '"e
pf, ease holding that this law was applicable
'n-osss He criticised thu; decision as some
,d.e,ite in It's requirements. holding that the
~, restraint referred TO in 1t was that OF geu
i character and that II was not 10 De ihteipie'eu
" a,s-riuc 10 restraints which were NOT injurious
. trade /; could not apply 10 an agreement ..
-, railroads which were complying str'cuy VII"
-. laws. nor could II apply 10 contract winch vas
:. tangent and Just as the Joint Traffic agreement
Itself Mr.. EONluHuo
= de- cornerstone was the rate fixed. II TINS was
.-,o,s the whole structure must IAN ou' ne "sse''
:, ,h,, II was lust and reasonable ana Ia cohiOi"
:, Nth the law. The parties 10 the agreement ""O
s.,na themselves 10 stand by the rates ana 'hus
- 40 no wrong 10 each other. 10 individuals or TO
.-n,,ni,les He held that the contract did not re-
,pre A detection OF trade. but undertook 10 give
g. r,-lous roads only their equitable proportion
r,s intent was 10 protect local interests, anu TINS
,.,,g true instead Of restraining trade II was cat
:ulaie5 10 promote 1t.
Nr Edmunds contended that the supervision Oh
ne Board Of Managers was Wholesome. Ihey
.ould only change rates so as TO leave them rea-
enable as between themselves ana oe'"ee" INK
dads and the public
us-A Justice Brewer asked Mr.. Edmunds II
mad which refused 10 accept a rate made by the
managers could continue 10 be member OF the
association while ignoring the rate
Certainly" Mr.. Edmunds replied III could Inc
urGt'
WHO would decide that poin,?' asked the Jus
Your Honors Of the Supreme Court" Mr.. Ed
nunds replied "All such controversies must Ia,
Ti;ably md their way 70 the court ana IL wou'1
y found IN the end that the agreement was
complete recognition Of the Interstate commerce
n reply TO a question by Justice Peckham he
AID that instead Of regarding the contract IN tnis
sse as the same as mar IN the h lysrsa
he Trans Missouri agreement had no ceciaration.
uch the Joint Traiic Association mas, ina, lts
aw !, was a declared intention 10 co-oreIaie
we're totally different. they were in many other
'espee,s
E. J. PHELPs's ARGUMENT.
T. J5ph.lys ex-Minister 20 England closed for
he railroads. Taking up Justice Brewers ques-
ion to Mr. Carter he said that in case OF dispute
between the parties to the contract 1t would be-
come a judicial question and be taken into the
:ourts He discussed especially the penal charac-
Ter OF the Antitrust law saying that of the ten
Supreme Court Justices who had in the past given
.he.r attehtion 10 the law. FIVE had been OF opinion
that II did not apply in cases OF this character.
ghle six Of the lower Federal judges had
70 held. If IT was TO be held applicable then the
was open to attack on consutuuona! grounds
without due process OF law This question had not
een raised in the Trans Missouri case. and II was
lot then permissible that 1T should be. The con
tract was one to maiftain Just and reasonable
aies in accordance with the requirements OF the
svef in the history OF the world held to be Illegal?
The contract only provides for reasonable compen-
iciiOn could properly be construed as deprvins
citizen Of this right and ma king him felon for
rotation OF she citizens right TO freedom OF con-
Iset.
J, course aud II must necessarily be so drawn as
% exclude contracts which were opposed TO public
nj. case could not be SO attacked
No public advantage was TO be secured by apply
Inc IT, rrl fqW "a he Il fr4T IL 70
nent The Antitrust law certainly could no; he
s,as to nhei SO bsnensi eI as ha
he regulation Of competition was State and not
regulation u Interstate commerce but said IL IL was
to be held 10 be National matter contracts FOR the
regulation Of competition must be decided on their
NJ. Phelps asserted that there was no public
vses ior sqc9 IN al pF're IT, F5gas as
her. on Seha Of the pubic was that s carrying
hi: would be a wrong ana there could be no publ;
necessity that goes beyond the pubic right Fur
thernore only the shippers demand the abrogation
Q: the contract. They were only one class Of the
public. Hence the demand is made on behalf Of
D. against the railroads TO affect injuriously
everybody. because q the ramihc atom o,
rShy as well as the shipping class
CLOSING PLEA FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
Solicitor &c neral Richards followed Mr.. Phelps.
toeihs the argument for the Government Mr..
Richards confessed his embarrassment in replying
70 tnfee o, the great lawyers OF the country. He
AGO spoke Of the vast interests involved. saying
tnat On the one eide thlrty-one OF the great rail
sOaas represonung S2,yVOov,D OF capital were ar
nyed against the general public. He replied TO Mr..
Seitefs contention that an agreement; for the re-
.falnt OF competition vas not n restraint OF trade.
,sssefune the contrary 10 be true and that CON
uaei which stiles competition does not restrain
usde He argued that II rates are held up even 10
J. inssnfcant extent, the extra charge IA 10 that
sA.ent restraint on trade. He also took issue
VIZ the assertion that the Interstate Commerce
ecl vas intended to prevent competition. II was
u.e that competition might result in the failure OK
.oht fa!..Osds but this chance which rail-
toad men must AXE others must In other lines or
vness The lowering Of prices was generally re
tafetc as a benefit. and Il was not TO be expected
hst the Government would step in 10 protect the
,sfoads when II did not protect others. Inc
.hlied States could not undertake to guarantee
ia; al railroads should become paying enterprises.
The Traffic Associations agreement Mr.. Richards
uhiended, wipes out all compel on by leaving IL 10
q central authority 20 make the rates, thus taxing
that power from the Individual lines The Inter
sac mis- sIn cnnld or.be