Hutchinson gazette. [volume] (Hutchinson, Kan.) 1895-1902, 1898-10-27
DECLARED A TRUST.
Important Decision by the United
States Supreme Court.
The ANTITRUST Law UPHELD.
The Joint TTanic Association Declared
An Illegal Organization g. HELD
to be n Combination In
Restraint Of Trade.


The Omitted States supreme court
Monday decided the Joint Traffic as.
ISOLATION railroad case In favor OF the
Uplted States and against the rail.
roads.
The case Is considered one OF the
most important that has ever come
from the supreme court, not only 10
the railroads, but to the general pub.
Ito b, cause of the vast railroad prop
critics represented by the Traffic as
ISOLATION.
The association was formed on No.
vember 10, 1895, by thirty-one rail.
wayh, representing the great trunk
lines and their network OF branches.
The purpose of the association, al
stated in the articles OF agreement,
was ito estab ish and maintain rea-
sonable and just rates, fares and reg
ulations on state and interstate traf-
fc."
A similar association, on a smaller
scale, was formed among southwest
ern roads, known as the transmits.
sonrl association.
These associations were soon at
tackled In the courts on the ground
that they were in violation of the
Sherman antitrust law, and also OF
the interstate commerce law. The
Transmlssouri case was first reached
BY the United States supreme court,
where, in notable opinion, the
court held that the association was
illegal, being in effect u comhinat ton
In restraint OF trade and commerce,
and therefore violative Of the anti
trust law.
This opinion was by " divided
bench, the divisions being very close,
viz: Chief Justice Fuller and jus
tices Harlan, Brewer, Brown and
Peckham holding the traffic assocla-
ton illegal, while Justices Field,
Gray, shiras and White filed q dis
setting opinion unfolding the asso-
chuon., Soon inter this declclon Jus
tlce Field gave place to Justice Nc
Renna.
Although the Missouri case was
considered somewhat of test, yet
the Joint Traffic association prepared
DO make a stubborn contest In sup
port Of its existence. The case against
II was begun on January Z, 1896, in
the United States circuit court for
the southern district of New York,
the United States being complainant
and the attorney general directing
IT'S course. The case went against the
government in the lower courts, Inc
circuit court Diminishing the bin 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 associa ion
and several railroads, including ex-
Senator Edmunds, James C. Carter
and Il. II. Phelps. Solicitor General
Richards filed the brief for the gov
eminent.
The main contention Of the govern
ment was that the traffic agreement |
10 a combination to prevent COMPETE
ton, thus constituting contract in |
restraint OF trade or commerce. The
answer OF the association maintained |
the legality of the agreement. on the
ground that the vast needs of COM
merce require joint action, and that
such action insures uniform and lust
rates and prevents secret and unjust
determinations.
Justice Peckham announced the
decision. He said that the court could
no difference between this
aud that of the Transmissourl case,
decided year ago, which was decided
against the railroads. He said the
only new point ..-volved was as to the
constitutionality of the antitrust act.
The court had reached the conclu.
sion that, as railroad corporations
performed duties Of semi-public
character, At was within the consti-
tutlonal power of congress to regu-
late them as provided by the anti
trust act. The only question then was
- to the policy of congress in adopt
nS such q measure, and as to ques-
ions of policy the court, he said, had
nothing to do.
The opinion, which was very brief,
vas concurred in by Chief Justice
Fuller and Justices Harlan, Brewer,
3rown and PecfSham. Three justices
ilssented, namely, Justices Gray,
'hfras and White. Justice McKenna
ook no part in the case, as the pros
'cution OF the Joint Traffic associa-
ion was begun while he was attor-
ley general.
After Justice Peckham had an
bounced the opinion Justice Harlan
'erbally expressed, with some evil
Ience of satisfaction, his concurrence
N the same ground, he said. as that
ct forth In the Transmissouri case.
Under the decisions to-day the de-
isions of the United States circuit
curt for ale southern district of
lew York and of the United States
nurt az annaal Ia both ~ ,,,L.iaL x.,o.. l