The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-10-25
Decision In tho Joint Traffic As
sociation Case.
THE COMBINE is ILLEGAL
The Constitutionality Of the Antitrust
Act L. Upheid-Railroads Are OF q
semi-Public Charactsr-Rsgu-
lated by Congress.

0tdteS supreme court To-Day 0eci0eQ
the joint traffic association railroad
case in favor of the United States and
against the railroads. The case was
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 property represented by
the trafiic association. The association
was formed Nov. 10. 1895. by 81 rail-
ways representing the great trunk
lines. The purpose OF association as
stated In the articles of agreement, was
ITO establish and maintain reasonable
and just rates. fares and regulations
Of state and interstate traffic." A SIM
liar association on q smaller scale was
formed among the southwestern rail-
roads. known as the trans Missouri
union, and the supreme court in its no.
table opinion, declared this association
illegal.
Justice Peckham announced the de-
cision to-day in the joint traffic case.
He said the court could distinguish no
difference between this and the trans
Missouri case decided a year ago. He
said the only new point involved was
as to the constitutionality of the anti
trust act. The court had reached the
performed a duty of a semi-publc char
acter II was within the constitutional
power Of congress to regulate them as
provided by the antitrust act. The
| opinion, which was very brief. was
concurred in by Chief Justice Fuller
| and Justices Harlan. Brewer, Brown
| and Peckham. Justices Gray. Shiras
and White dissented. Justice McKenna
took no part in the case.
Under the decision to-day the decis-
| ion of the United States circuit court
for the southern district of New York
and of the United States court of ap-
peals. both OF which were favorable TO
the joint traffic association, are re-
| versed.
In the joint traffic opinion. Justice
Peckham gives a history of the early
stages of the litigation and the main
| issues between the government and the
association. After pointing out the sim
ilarity between the Missouri
case and the present one. the opinion
says:
$50 far as the establishment of rates
and fares is concerned, we do not see
| any substantial difference between this
| agreement and the one set forth in the
| trans Missouri case. In that case the
rates were established by the agree
ment and any company violating the
| schedule of rates as established under
| the was W pNhoits
A company could withdraw from the
association. giving 30 days notice, but
| while IL continued a member IL was
| bound to charge the rates fixed under a
penalty for not doing so. In this case
the companies are bound TO charge
rates fixed upon originally In the agree
ment. The only alternative is the
adoption OF resolution oy the ooard
of directors of another company, pro-
| viding for a change Of rates so far as
that company Is concerned ana the ser
| wee OF copy tnereol on ,he ooaru OF
managers. IL Is tne proVlsioh whIcn 10
referred 10 py couhsei as Inost mate
riai ana irhPor.aht anu one wnlon eUn an
stltutes a materiai ana linpor.ant als, :.
thcs,on petWeen .ne wv s,,,ons =,
| aiter hoiuhs ,"e. ''e "a P.ipr,i. .iss VI
the TWO cases are not essentially uiiier-
emu, the opihIon ploe ' A.
| Inc na.urai anu uhee, enee. oi '.e
| TWO asreehen's 'ns W
nidin,aln Ia.es a. a ntsn ~ a,ae.
| Mouiu o.nei Misu ~ saii n. anu .,m .s ',a..,,.
enoes pe.w.e" III, s's.ora. a.,
lmportan. 70 can lor u'aeen. 'uus
| nneh.s on VIC WV ~ my
grounds.
Inc opi,.oh men m 'sn ,, Up .he .on- u
stItutionanty ot ,he .. an.ruse az as
aHectlng rdiiroaos. 1us,,ce reShnanl II
says that IL Is worthy VI Iehnaih eni,
tne ques'ioh was neNeI faIseu VI ~ niI.eu
at upon tHe arsuheht III 'ne lornneI
case. Ia ma lDae
no one OF tne many as.ute anu apie
counsei tor tne 'rahspor.aioh coihpan-
les IN tnat ease raiseu an oo'eS y,
sucn conclusive character, ~ wen
iounueu' Is srons eviuence hat .ue
reasons showing .he invahoI'y Vi the
act as construed 40 hot ne on ,he sur
race ana were no' then apparent 70
tnose counsel u
is now contenoeo that con'racts IN re-
straint OF raoe are not necessarily
preJudiciai 90 tne weIare anu security
OF society ana unat consresS 10 w,'nou'
power 10 pronlplt geherany All con-
tracts IN restraint OF ,raue anu tnat
tne eHort 10 40 tnis ihNahuates tne
ACT IN question.
justice fecknan comments upon tne
| fears expressed by counsel Tor the rail-