The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-02-06
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1898.
A GREAT COMPLIMENT TO THE
TIMES.

on the 22d Of March 1897. the Supreme
Court OF the United States announced It's
decision in what is known as the Trans
Missouri Freight Association case.
Briefly stated the case was one in which
the railroads west of the Missouri river
had formed a pool for regulating freight
charges amongst themselves. The United
states government attacked the associa-
ton In the courts upon the ground that
the agreement violated the antitrust act
OF Congress which provides that every
combination in restraint of trade shall
be void The counsel who represented
the railroads in the case argued 10 the
Supreme Court that Ut could not be sup
posed Congress intended 10 denounce
every" combination that restraints trade.
but It must be supposed 1t intended to
make void only those which put "unreas-
enable" restraints on trade, leaving those
which put only reasonable" restraints
upon trade IN full force. The Supreme
Court replied, however. that the word oil
the act OF Congress was every" and
that It could not read the word "unress-
enable" into it.
The courts decision made a tremen-
dous sensation in the country because it
was at once seen that the decision must
have a most important bearing upon
the industrial combinations of the day in
which so many hundreds Of millions OF
dollars have come to be involved.
For years The Times had been discuss
ing in editorials written for fits columns
by Mr.. w L. Royal, the principles that
underie industrial combinations and in
sisting that they did not involve ques-
lions of technical law only. but great So
cial questions which lie AT the foundation
OF all organized society The Times the
sis had been. in brieI, that by natural
law all men have a right TO make any
agreements whatever with their fellow
men that are not essentially corrupt or
founded in a malicious or mischievous
purpose that this is the essential idea
OF our common law; that 1t applies in an
cases alleged 20 involve restraint of
ments OF laborers 20 'strike" and such
other combinations; that whatever has
been said at any time by courts or text
writer's inconsistent with this thesis has
been an erroneous exposition OF our com
mon law brought out by the stress of
different periods; and that as these arc
mans natural rights. recognized by the
common law. they are of those 'llber-
ties" and OF that property" which the
18th and 18th amendments TO the Consti-
tuition declare the citizen shall be pro-
tected IN.
When the Supreme Court decision was
announced Mr. Royal saw that The
Times Propositions had been either ie-
morod or condemned BY the Supreme
Court. and yet n was plain they had not
been submitted 90 II or considered by il.
A new case was about that time
brought TO the Supreme Court involving
exactly the same questions az were in
the one decided. and so Mr.. Royal gath
cred together all OF The Times articles
ON the SubJtCt anu IIdiiltu tHtm INTO a
pamphlet called the Pool and the
Trust" which he published in April 1897
sending a copy of IL at once to all the
counsel in .Ae case. Of whom Hon. f. j.
Phelps. our former minister to England
was one. The pamphlet expressly point
ed out that its argument had not been
made TO the court. The new case is to
be argued In the Supreme Court IN about
three weeks. and Mir. Phelps has filed
his printed brief In II. written long after
Mr.. Royals pamphlet was sent him.
which is now before as. He has totally
abandoned the line OF argument pursued
on the former hearing and he has adopt
ed The Times argument throughout,
though he has acknowledge no Indebted
ness TO any one for It.
We have not space TO quote from It at
large 10 prove this, and viii have to con-
finc ourselves therefore. 10 few lines.
bur those will suf1ice. He says page Ss
after celebrating The Times idea
"This. then. must be the criterion:
IL the contract sought TO be- prohibited.
nae that BY the genera! principles OF law
ed Justice II II the right Of the party 10
DotDe: Of 10 u unreasonable, unjust and