The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-02-25

that at most the agreement was only re-
straint upon competition, and he said that
competition was only an accident to trade,
and was not always essential to the pros
Derity of trade. Indeed IL was sometimes
necessary that composition shonid De cur
tailed In the interest or the publlc Welfafc
Competition carried to its utmost limit
must In the end always result in the eX-
tiuction of weaker rivals by stronger Ones;
hence K, check Il before it should reach
that point was not in derogation of the pub
lie interest. Every one knew how destruct-
i've to property were railroad wars result
ing from competition. Not only were the
wars injurious to stockholders but infinite
" more so to the public at large through
the determinations, which are often sufn-
cient to raise one man TO wealth while re-
ducing another to poverty. The most DOW
erful shipper always has the advantage.
Take the Standard Oil Company for in
stance: it was able to command railroad
rates under the competitive system and
thus continue to add to its already large
wealth The remedy for these evils was
found in the restraint of competition which
could be accomplished by an agreement like
that of the Joint Traffic Association. The
same end was sought to be accomplished by
the interState-commerce law, the object or
Congress in enacting this law being mani
testify to check competition. Pooling would
never nave Deen resorted 10 put LOT aDSo-
lutte necessity. Pools were prohibited by
the interstate-commerce law. Nothing was
left but to enter into agreements ike tnat
of the Traffic Association Less D1ndlng ar
tlcles than this had proved ineffective. In
der this understanding the temptation TO
stability and equality of rates were pre-
served The contract was in accordance
with law wholesome, and in the inter-
est of the public as we'll as the companies.
The great and browning object of the
agreement was to bring about uniformity
of rates and if uniformity in this respect
was desirable. the agreement was 10 De
commended and not condemned ana re-
strained. He contended in this connection
that competition in railroad rates could rot
be defended, whatever might be its pene-
fetal effects on other lines of business. Inc
government was under as much obllSatioI
10 protect shippers from discriminating
petition as if the government ltseI o"heu
the roads. -,
In conclusion Mr.. Carter said that II such
agreements as that of the franc ASSURE
ton could not be enforced. one OF lnree
things must happen: Either al Isli ii S
transportation must be abanuoneu' tu ny
roads must consolidate or all competihs
reads must be found daily violating q GRIM
inal law The first TWO alternatives were
! moi likely to occur, and inevitably the other
must I'm other words said Justice Brew
or interrupting, 1.-THE railroads are TO be eX-
| nected to disobey the law unless they are
allowed to give bond to one another TO
ohev IT." In reply to this observation Mr..
Carter said: 1T is possible to put such
obligations on men that it is not poSslpIe
for human nature to observe them lie
added the opinion that the railroads were
generally as honorable as any other class
of men in the country. Mr.. Carter spoke
for two and half hours, holdlnS the
ccurt's attention until the hour of the ad-
journment. ,,,.,
To-r0orrow Messrs Edmunds and Phelps
will be heard and Mr.. Richards will reply.
II is probable that the entire day VIII De
consumed by them.