The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-10-29

Solicitor Richards's Review of the SUI
preme Court Decision.

solicitor Rtchards's Review of the SUI
preme Court Decision.
WASHINGTON. Oct. 2S.-SoIicitor Gen.
eral John Is. Richards, who had charge of
the governments side Of the JOINT Traffic
Association case before the United States
Supreme Court, and whose brilliant argu-
ment, occupying two days, has been the
subject of much favorable comment by
members of the Supreme Court and bar,
was questioned to-day, after he had an OPP
portunity to read its full text, as to the eff
feet of last Mondays decision on the rail-
road interests of the country. Mr.. Richards
said:
The Sherman antitrust act declares IL
legal every contract combination in the
form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy
~ restraint OF trade or commerce among the
several States The Joint Traffic case
clinches the decision of the transmissouri
case, holding that the law applies
TO railroads, and prohibits all agree
ments IN restraint Of interstate trade
be reasCnabie; in addition, II holds
explicitly that the law is constitutional
when thus applied. even to reasonable
agreements in restraint of trade. The con-
stitutionality of the act was not raised in
the transmissouri case. but in the Joint
Traffic Mr.. Phelps directed his entire argu-
ment to this point, urging that Congress
could not declare Illegal and prohibit rea-
sonable contracts. The freedom of contract
guaranteed by the constitution forbade 1t,
he insisted The answer of the court to
this was that railroads enjoy public fran
chises, they perform public services, and,
when engaged in interstate commerce, are
subject to the reguia tions of Congress.
What the ultimate result of the decision
viii be Ii is impossible 10 say. Cases which
establish important principles usually affect
not simply courts. but legislatures in a way
cne cannot foresee 1t is gratifying to be-
3ieve that the sentiment of the people
against injurious monopOlies can find legit-
innate through
their representatives enforced by the
court. | know 1t has been and is insisted
roads. too. but nevertheless there is set
tied sentiment among the people against
railroad monoDolies and in favor of unre-
strained competition. Most of the States.
some in the constitutions and some in their
laws. have prohibited the consolidation of
competing lines. Congress in the inter-
which is simply one mode OF preventing
competition, TO keep up rates.
There are men of thought who insist that
regulation should supplant competition, but
the people DO not think so vet. In fact.
competition is the recognized underlying
basis OF social and industrial and political
life in this country. Competition goes along
with freedom, with independent action. The
country was founded on the principles of
liberty and equality. Its founders sought
to secure TO every section an equal chance
under a lava fair showing in the race of
life
Under this decision it is left to open
competition TO secure reaSonablenesS In
rates IL Is true that the common law re-
CURES that rates shall be reasonable So
does the interstate-commerce law. But this
Is mere declaration, and there is no. ade-
quate remedy to enforce the barren right.
Congress has not given the Interstate
commerce Commission power over rates 1t
has relied upon competition to keep them
fair. Whether Congress will see fit to take
the railroads out of the operation of the
natural law of trade. and for independent
competition substitute governmental regu-
lation, remains TO be seen.