The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-02-25
Solicitor GeneraI Richards Opens for
the Government, and >. II. Carter
Follows for the Railways.
PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS
CORBETT CASE FROM OREGON DIS
CUssED BY SENATOR sPOONER.
Appropriation for Care OF Arsenal Ma.
chinery Inserted in the sundry
civil Bill by the House.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24.-The Supreme
Court to-day began the hearing in the joint
traffic case. in which the United States
seeks to have the agreement on the part of
the thirty-cne leading roads of the country
constituting the Traffic Association, as
formed i'm 1895 set aside and declared null
and void and to have the association en-
joired from operating under this agree
inert The case has proved to be the means
of collecting the most formidable array OF
COUNSEL on the side of the defense that has
been seen in the courtroom for many day
The list included ex-senator George L. Ed
munds, of Vermont, ex-Minister To England
Phelps and Hon. James f. Garter of New
York each of whom, it was announced,
would speak Solicitor General Richards
appeared FOR the government. The time for
the presentation of the case was extended
so as to give the counsel for the railroads
four hours making six hours for the entire
hearing. Mr.. Richards opened the case He
depended largely on the decision of the SUI
preme Court in the Transmissouri Freight
Association case arguing that there was
practically no difference between the agree
ment in that case and the agreement of the
tic Association. He said there We're nine
trunk lines embraced in the association,
and that the object was to cover all COM
petitive traffic passing through to or from
the Western termini of these lines, and
thus 10 practically control the transporta-
ton business of the country. He said the
board of managers had not only full con-
troll of the competitive business on the vari-
Gus lines, but that they were authorized to
distribute the traffic among the parties to
the agreement. He argued that in this case,
as in the transmissouri case, the court was
not called upon to deal with the professions
of the members of the association, but with
the question as TO the violation of the law
which was evident. Mr.. Richards contend
ed that Article of the joint traffic agree
ment would authorize the pooling of freight
in contravention of the interstate-commerce
act but Ire said he would not go extensive
" into that, as the article could be rejected
without impairing the agreement. The pub
lie was interested III the equitable division
of railroad earnings, but the intention of
the interstate-commerc law was to pre-
vent the sitting of competition and the es-
tablishment of compulsory rates TO the in
jury of the common welfare. Mr.. Richards
commented ut length upon the clause in the
agreement declaring that it was not TO be
construed by the managers a justifica-
ton of any infraction of any Law. Such
clause could not, he contended, operate to
save the agreement. The power conferred
on the managers was contrary to law.
Hence the whole agreement must fall,
gardless of the saving clause.
Mr.. CARRIERS ARGUMENT
Mr.. Richards was followed by Mr.. Carter
for the traffic association He denied the
right of the government. to an injunction
in the case. The subject, he said in his in
PRODUCTION, was of vast Importance, not
only to the railroads themselves. but to the
general business Of the country ssit large.
Mr.. Carter said there were four points in.
Volved in the controversy as follows:
First, whether the method of procedure by
resorting to a court of equity was permissi-
Bile: second, whether the traffic agreement
is in restraint of trade and commerce;
third. whether, if the agreement is not re-
stfaint of trade, it is a conspiracy to mo-
nopolize; fourth whether it embraces Il
pooling agreement contrary to the inter-
state-commerce law. Taking up these points
III their order, Mr.. Carter contended that
the common law remedy was the reasona-
BILE one and that if the government sought
u remedy through methods in equity 1t must
make it's reason for SO doing plain This
was especially true IN of violation of
penal statutes, and it was an old principle
IN English and American practice. 1t was
not sufficient, he said to say, as the govern
nlent did IL this case that the common law
die not supply an adequate remedy. MI.
Cater contended that the agreement was
not q violation OF the antitrust act in re-
strant Of trade. In doing this. he reviewed
the decision of the Supreme Court in the
1rahsmSsouri Association case. In that
case the question was, that agreement
an unreasonable restraint of trade. That
point had beer decided against the agree
merit in the former case. Mr.. Carter said
he would not attack the decision in that
case but he would undertake to show that
IN tins case the agreement was not in re-
strait of trade at all. lie then proceeded
TO his contention that instead of being in
RESTRAINT Of trade. the Joint Traffic Associa-
ton ,greement was actually intended TO
promce trade and commerce. His argu-
ment IN this point on the line that
regulation did not necessarily mean re-
straint and the word was only used in the
statuttas applicable to injurious restraint.
lie reviewed the circumstances under which
the ani-trust law was enacted saying il
grew OF of the Democratic taunts against
the Rehblicans that they were favorable
70 trust because they We're protectionists,
c'lt CofEress had not intended TO demoiish
all truss, only all those which were in
furious their operation.
MI S'rter said in reply To 81 question
from Jbtice Brewer that any injury to
trade INST be an injury 10 the general pub
lie. IhR reply brought from Justice
Brewer mother question by way of Illus
tration. The Standard Oil Company had,
he SAID, len popularity supposed to increase
trace ut he expense of the public was it
not inteHed that such combination
should nerestrained in the interest of the
public?
REPR TO JUSTICE BREWER.
Replyingo this MIR. Carter said he had
no doubt TIT this consideration Was in the
minds OF my, though rot in the minds of
tile iegislatys, ana this feature was dealt
Will b. thlaw under the head of mo-
nopoly M Garter drew the conclusion