The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-02-26
Conclusion of the Hearing of the
Joint Traffic Association Case BE-
fore the Supreme Court.
DEBATE ON APPROPRIATIONS
MIR. DINGLEY ATTACKED IN THE
HOUSE BY MIR. MOODY.
Little Probability of Money Being
COrbett Case Discussed in Senate.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25.-The argument
Of the Joint Traffic Association case was
concluded in the United States Supreme
Court to-day and the case was taken under
adivisement. Ex-senator Edmunds was the
nrst speaker. He appeared on behalf of the
railroads, introducing his remarks by an
analysis of the associations agreement. He
said that previous to entering into this
compact the roads which became parties to
1t had filed their schedules of rates with
the Interstate-commerce Commission and
said the rates and fares then specified had
been accepted as just and reasonable. The
object of the agreement was, he commended,
only to secure justice and fair play among
the roads and to the public at large all
being interested in securing uniform and
stable rates. The interState-commerce law
required that the rates should be just and
reasonable; that patrons should be put on
terms of equality; that localities should not
be Disseminated against; that there should
be equality of treatment of one another.
All these requirements were met by the
joint traffic contracts. Mr.. Edmunds con-
tended that the supervision of the board of
managers was wholesome.
Here Justice Brewer asked Mr. Edmunds
If a road which refused to accept rate
made by the managers could continue to be
a member of the association while ignoring
the rate.
Certainly" Mr.. Edmunds replied, lit
could. The road is still under the jurisdic-
ton of the interstate-commerce law
who would decide that point asked the
justice
your Honors of the Supreme Court" Mr..
Edmunds replied.
In a reply to a question by Justice Peck
ham he said that instead of regarding the
contract in this case as the same as that
III the 9'ransmissouri Association, he re-
garded 1t as quite the reverse. The trans
missouri agreement had no declaration such
as the Joint Traffic Association has, that It's
purpose is to promote the interstate-com-
merce law. 1t was a declared intention to
cooperate with the law. Also In the matter
of rates the two were totally different, as
they We're in many other respects.
Mr. Phelps closed for the railroads. LAX
ing up Justice Brewers question to Mr.
Carter he said that in case of dispute be-
tween the parties to the contract, it would
into the courts. The contract was one to
maintain Just and reasonable s~rates," in
accordance with the requirements of the
interstate-commerce act: No public advan-
tage was to be secured by applying the
antitrust law to the joint traffic agree
meat. Mr.. Phelps asserted that there was
upon private rights az was contemplated In
this proceeding. The demand here on behalf
OF the public was that its carrying should
be done for less than an equitable rate.
This would be wrong and there could be no
public necessity that goes beyond the pub
lie right. Furthermore, only the shippers
demand the abrOgation of the contract.
They are only one class of the public
Hence the demand is made on behalf of one
class as against another. TO strike q ruin
Gus blow against the railroads was to in
juriOuSly affect almost everybody because
of the ramflcationS of the railroad business
and the railroad class had rights as well as
the shipping class.
Mr. Richards followed Mr.. Phelps In
closing the argument for the government
he spoke of the vast interests involved
the great railroads, representing 81, $40, U9O.
600 of capital, were arraigned against the
general public. Mr.. Richards replied to Mr..
Carriers contention that an agreement for
the restraint of competition was not re-
straint of trade, asserting the contrary to
be true, and that q contract which STILES
competition does restrain trade. He argued
that If rates are held up even to an insig
nificant extent the extra charge is to that
extent a restraint upon trade. He also took
issue with the assertion that the interstate
commerce act was intended to prevent com
petition. The traffic associations agree
ment, he commended, wipes out all competi-
ton by leaving it to central authority
to make the rates, thus taking that power
thought Mr.. Phelps's constitutional argu-
ment found its reply in the fact that rail-
roads were public agents No court had
ever held that the freedom of contracts on
the part of railroads went to the extent
of allowing the roads to enter into con-
tracts which would give them monopoly
by fixing arbitrary rates. Being public
agencies, the roads we're properly held to
making of contracts among themselves.
Mr.. Richards here concluded.