Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1898-10-26
THE RAILROADS LOSE.
Association Held to be a Combina-
ton in Restraint of
Trade.

Washington, d. c., Oct. 24.-The Unit
ed States Supreme court today decided the
Joint Traffic association railroad cases in
favor of the United States and against
the railroads.
The case is considered one of the most
important that has ever come before the
Supreme court, not only to the railroads
but to the general public, and because Of
the vast railroad properties represent
ed by the Traffic association. The
association was formed on Novem-
Der 10, 1895, by thirty-one rail
ways representing the great trunk
lines and their network Of branches. The
purpose of the association, as stated in
the articles Of agreement, was "to es-
tabllsh and maintain reasonable and just
rates, fares and regulations on state and
interstate traffic"
A similar association on a smaller scale
was established among southwestern
roads, known as the Trans-Missouri as
ISOLATION.
These associations were soon attacked
III the courts on the ground that they
were in violation of the Sherman anti
trust law and also of the interstate COM
merce law.
The Trans-Missouri first reached the
United States Supreme court, where, in
a notable opinion, the court held that the
ASSOCIATION was illegal, being in effect a
combination in restraint of trade and
commerce and therefore violative of
the antitrust law. This opin-
ion was by a divided bench, the
division being very close, viz: Chief JUS
Brown and Peckham holding the traffic
association illegal, while Justices Field,
Gray, Shiras and White filed a dissenting
opinion unfolding the association. Soon
after this decision Justice Field gave place
to Justice McKenna.
Although the Missouri case was consid-
cred somewhat of a test, yet the Joint
Traffic association prepared to make a
stubborn contest in support of it's exist
ence. The case against it was begun on
January Z, 1898, in the United States
circuit court for the Southern district of
New York, the United States being com
pialnant and the attorney general direct
ing its course. The case went against
the government in the lower courts, the
circuit court dismissing the bill. and the
court of appeals affirming the dismissal.
The government appealed to the United
States Supreme court. An exceptionally
brilliant array of counsel appeared for
the association and the several railroads,
including ex-senator Edmunds, James c..
Carter and E.. J. Phelps. Solicitor-Gener-
al Richards filed the brief for the govern
ment. The main contention of the gov
eminent was that the traffic agreement
is a combination to prevent competi-
ton, thus constituting a contract in
restraint of trade or The an
swer of the association maintained the le-
gality of the agreement, on the ground
that the vast needs of require
joint action and that such action insures
uniform and just rates and prevents Sc
cret and unjust determinations.
Justice Peckham announced the decis-
ion. He said that the court could distin-
guish no difference between this case and
fhaf of tho Tro nc-MicSnrv 20 < doaidoH n
year ago, which was decided against
the railroads. He said the only
Iaw point involved was as to the
constitutionality of the antitrust
act. The court had reached the
conclusion that as railroad corporations
acter, it was within the Constitutional
power of Congress TO regulate them as
provided by the antitrust act. The only
question then was as to the policy of
Congress in adopting such a measure, and
as to questions OF policy the court, he
said, had nothing to do.
The opinion, which was very brief, was
%concurred in by Chief Justice Fuller and
Justices Harlan, Brewer, Brown and
Peckham. Three justices disSented.
namely, Justices Gray. Shiras and White.
Justice McKenna took no part in the
case as the prosecution of the
Joint Traffic association was begun
While he was Encouragement. After
Justice Peckham had announced the
opinion Justice Harlan verbally ex-
pressed with some evidence Of satisfac-
ton, his concurrence, on the same
ground, he said, as that set forth in the
Trans-Missouri case.
Under the decision today the decisions
of the United States circuit court for
the Southern district of New York and
of the United States court of appeals, both
of which were favorable to the Joint
Traffic association, are reversed.
Justice Peckham also announced the
courts opinion in cases against the Kan
sas City Live Stock exchange operating
at Kansas City and Western Missouri.
The government prosecuted under the
antitrust law. The Supreme court holds
that the association does not come under
the antitrust law. Justice Harlan in a
dissenting opinion declared that such
combinations are rings or syndicates,
which, if extended to oil, sugar, salt,
lumber and other staples, would place
the m of the country under the
control of a few rings and syndicates.