The record-union., 1898-10-25

dHu lnaC the euOrfS TO do this lnVall-
dates the Act in question"
Justice Peckham comments on the
fears expressed by counsel for the rail-
road association that the effect of these
decisions would be far reaching, rem
dering Illegal most business contracts
or combinations, such as contracts to
maintain wages, contracts of incorpora-
ton for any line Of business or partner
ship contracts.
This makes quite formidable list"
the opinion states, but it. will be OBJ
served that no contracts of the nature
described are now before the court
The formation of corporations have
never been regarded, the opinion states,
as in the nature Of contracts in re-
straint Of trade. The same is true of
partnerships Proceeding, the opinion
says:
Has not Congress, with regard to
interstate commerce, and in the course
or regulating it, in the case of railroad
companies, the power to say that no
contract or commission shall be legal
which shall restrain trade and COM
merce by shutting out the operation Of
the general law Of competition? We
think it has.
1.-The business of a railroad carrier is
OF public nature, and in performing it
the carrier is also performing to a GER
tain extent a function of Govern
ment, which requires it to perform
the service upon equal terms to ALL
This public service, that of transporta-
ton of passengers and freight, is a part
transported between States such COM
merce becomes what is described as
interstate, and comes to a certain ex-
tent under the Jurisdiction of Congress.
by virtue of its power to regulate COM
merce among the several States. When
the grantees of this public franchise
are competing railroad companies for
interstate commerce, We think Con-
gress is competent to forbid any agree
mem or combination among them by
means of which competition is to be
smothered
We think it extends at least to the
prohibition of contracts relating to
interstate commerce which would ex-
tinguish all competition between other
wise competing railway corporations.
and which would in that way restrain
Interstate trade or commerce.
We do not think that when the
grantees of this public franchise are
competing railroads, seeking the trans
portation Of men and goods from one
State to another, that ordinary free
dom of contract in the use and man
agement of their property requires the
right to combine as one consolidated
and powerful association for the pur-
pose of sitting competition among
themselves, and of thus keeping their
rates and charges higher than they
might otherwise be under the laws Of
competition. And this is so, even
though the rates provided for in the
agreement may for the time be not
more than reasonable. They may cas-
lily and at any time be increased. 1t
is the combination Of these large and
powerful corporations, covering vast
sections Of territory and influencing
trade throughout the whole extent
thereof, and acting as one body in all
the matters over which the cOmbina-
ton extends, that constitutes the al
legged evil, and in regard to which, so
far as the combination operates upon
and restraints interstate commerce,
Congress has power to legislate and to
prohibit. The prohibition of such con-
tracts may in the judgment of Congress
be one of the reasonable necessities for
the proper regulation of commerce, and
Congress is the judge of such necessity
and propriety, unless, in case Of a pos
sible gross perversion of the principle,
the courts might be applied to for re-
lief
p of ~Sr1cr n nj
regarding the general constitutional
rights of the citizen to make contracts
and the extent of individual liberty
under the Fourteenth Amendment, the
opinion says:
only. and not one Of policy. We think
the policy exists In Congress, and the
statute therefore Is valid
In conclusion, the opinion says: "The
Judgment of the lower courts, favor
able to the Joint Traffic Association,
are reversed, and the case remanded
to the Circuit Court of the United
States for the District of New York,
with directions to take such further
proceedings therein as may be in con-
formity with this opinion"
The opinion was concurred in by
Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Har-
Ian, Brewer, Brown and Peckham, JUS
tees Gray, Shiras and White dissented.
Justice McKenna took no part in the
case, as the prosecution of the Joint
Traffic Association was begun while
he was Attorney General.
After Justice Peckham had an
nounced the opinion, Justice Harlan
verbally expressed with some evidence
of satisfaction his concurrence on the
same ground, he said. as that set forth
in the trans Missouri case
Under the decision Of to-day the de-
cisions of the United States Circuit
Court for the Southern District of New
York and the United States Court of
Appeals are reversed.
By coincidence, two other opinions re-
lating to the antitrust law were hand
ed down to-day by Justice Peckham.
In the case of the United States
against Henry Hopkins and others, the
Government sought TO restrain the
Kansas City Livestock Exchange from
carrying on its business, on the ground
that it was an association in restraint
of trade, and, therefore, illegal under
the antitrust law. The association is
carried on at the Kansas City stock
yards, partly in kansas and partly in
Missouri It's members receive ship
ments of cattle from Nebraska, Colo
RADIO, Texas, Iowa, Kansas and the
Territories, selling them to the large
packing houses, particularly in Chica-
GO ST. Louis and New York.
The lower. court ruled against the
Exchange, on the ground that it was a
combination in restraint of trade Jus
tice Peckham's opinion, in which all
the court, except Justice Harlan con-