Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-10-03
THE SUPREME COURT
Highest Legal Tribunal Will Meet Again
Next Monday.
Several Important Decisions Expect
ed, Among Them That on the
Joint Traffic Association.

Next Monday the United States Supreme
Court will meet at noon and begin the Oc-
| tober term. Many decisions of importance
are expected to be handed down during
this term, among them the decision in the
case of the Joint Traffic Association.
This is a case wherein the Attorney Gen
eral of the United States brought suit
against q combina ton of railways as in
violation of the antitrust law. The case
was tried first in the circuit court of aD-
peas in New York, and the government
lost. The government appealed TO the
United States Supreme Court.
Claim of the Association.
The Joint Traffic Associa; ton is a combi-
| nation of thirty-one eastern railroads. The
| purposes of the association, as stated in the
agreement under which it was organized,
were Ito aid in fulfilling the purposes of
| the interstate commerce act, to cooperate
with each other and adjacent transporta-
ton ass ociauons, to establish and maintain
reasonable and just rates and regulations
on state and Interstate traffic, to prevent
unjust discrimination and to secure the re-
Guction and concentration of agencies and
the Introduction cf economy in the freight
| and passenger service
The railroads admitted the execution of
the agreement. but denied unlawful intent.
1t was claimed in justification of the agree
ment that
Prior to the Interstate commerce act
the growth of railroads had rendered GER
tain joint action necessary to meet the
needs of, commerce.
ITO carry out the prohibi tons Of the in
tel"tate commerce act against unjust dis
cr!minttions and Undue preferences, con-
cert among the railroads is absolutely nee
esSary. =
Unrestricted competition invites unjust
and secret discrimination and inevitably
leads to those practices prohibited by the
interstate commerce act, through which in
the end the weaker roads will be forced in
to bankruptcy. Such competition is incon-
sistent with those uniform and stable rates
and fares, just and reasonable to carrier
and shipper, which it is the object of the
commerce act to secure and maintain.
The Attorney Generals Contention.
The argument of the Attorney General
was that the agreement violates the anti
trust law, because it creates asSocia-
ton of competing trunk line systems, to
which is given jurisdiction over competi-
: tive interstate traffic, with power through
central authority aided by a skillful
scheme of restrictions, regulations and pen
aities, to establish and maintain rates and
fares on such traffic and prevent compe-
tition, thus constituting contract in re-
straint OF trade or commerce among the
several states defined by the United
States Supreme Court in the Trans Mis-
souri, case"
In the latter case the Supreme Court held
that the antitrust law applies to common
carriers by railroad; that it prohibits and
renders illegal all agreements in restraint
of interstate trade and commerce, whether
the restraint be reasonable or unreasona-
BILE"
The Attorney General contended that the
question before the court was whether the
agreement of the association operates as
"a restraint upon interstate trade and COM
merce.
Inc case was argued last February the
IallroadS retaining ex-senator EdmundS,
James c. Carter and Lewis Cass Ledyard
as counsel.