Daily capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1896-1899, 1898-10-26
rHE ANrI-rRusr pEcIsIoN


The decision Of the United States
supreme court against the railroad
traric combine Is the most important
verdict that has been rendered by the
highest court OF appeals since It's
decision on the income tax. The
antitrust law, enacted by congress is
now upheld by the court on general
principles. TIE supreme court had
already decided against a similar
combination OF railroads on smaller
scale. The second antitrust decision
is more sweeping, as II affects trust
formed In 1896 by the individual
managers OF 81 trunk line railroads
The anti trust act Of congress Is now
upheld by the highest authority and
becomes the supreme law OF the land.
The opinion ls concurred 10 by FIVE OF
the ablest Justices OF the Supreme
Court, including Chief Justlcs Fuller.
The last named was appointed by
President Cleveland. He was one Of
the foremost members Of the bar and
is lurlst OF The greatest ability and
scholarship. Justice Brewer, who
has reputation for favoring the cor
poratIons, unltes In the decision.
Thus there Is for the antitrust law
the sanction Of the very ablest legal
minds In the country. There Is no
danger whatever that the decision
will ever be reversed.
The supreme court holds that the
railroad Is public carrier and must
perform It's services upon equal terms
TO all. This is the old common law
theory OF public carriers but the
court goes farther aud declares that
the business OF a railroad Is also ITO a
certain extent u function OF govern
ment." It's services are "a part OF
trade and commerce. that comes
under the Jurisdiction of congress,
The court holds that congress has the
power TO prohibit any agreement or
combination by which competition Is
TO be smOthered, Any combination
which tends 10 lessen or extingulsh
competition Is held TO be In restraint
OF trade aud detrimental 20 the busi-
ness interests OF the country.
The court recognizes combines OF
large and powerful corporations as
dangerous TO the public welfare, IL Is
held that when the people give
franchises 10 secure competing rail-
road facilities they do not include
1.-THE right TO combine them as one
consolidated aud powerful association"
for the purpose OF stlillng competition,
and thus keeping their rates and
charges higher than they might
otherwise be under the laws OF com
petition. There seems 10 be nothIng
left nov for the railroad companies
but 20 submit 10 the same conditions
which operate Ia all other classes OF
buslness-the inexorable forces OF
competition. All eifort'to take corpor.
ations out OF the non competitive
class Of induatrlea has proven fall
ure The weaker will be crushed 90
the wall, instead OF being upheld, as
was no doubt the honest Intention
OF the projectors Of the trafiic combine.
The end OF II all will be the recog-
nation OF the popullstic principle
limited at by the supreme court, that
all common carriers are 10 the very
nature OF their services "a function
OF the government,
The theory that enforcement Of the
antitrust law would seriously injure
the value of railroad property was
received by the court rather i'm.
patiently. Judge Peckham declared
that now for the third time the same
arguments have been presented and
the court was asked 20 recant its
former opinions. Chauncey Depew
aud other great millionaire corp0-
ration lawyers labored earnestly with
the court 10 have II retracs It's steps,
but In valn. The supreme court
virtually took the position boldly
advocated by Governor Larrabee OF
Iowa that the direct and lmmedl.
lte effect OF competition was TO lower
'ates and develop tracie by Increasing
he demands for commodities, the
upply OF which increases commerce,
nd as result will Increase the earn.