The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-10-24
Majority o. Justices Hold tits a Cumhins.
ton 10 Restrain Trade.
IN VIOLATION OF ANTITRUST LAW.
Justices Gray, Shlras and White Filed a Dissent
Ing Oplnon---Ihe Decision Is Of FarRaashng
importance Brilliant Counsel Employed.

Washington, Oct. 2i.--The United
States Supreme Court today decided
the Joint Traffic association railroad
case in favor of the United States and
against the railroads.
The case is considered one OF the most
important that has ever come before
The supreme Court, not only to the rail-
Sfoads, but TO the general public. and
because OF the vast railway properties
represented by the traffic association.
The association was formed Oh Novem-
Der -, 1895, by 81 railroads representing
the great trunk lines and their network
OF branches. The purpose of the as
ISOLATION, as stated in the articles oe
agreement, were TO establish and
maintain reasonable and just rates.
tares, rules and regulations on state
and Interstate traffic"
"A similar association on n smaller
scale was established yamong south
western roads, known as the Trans
Missouri association. The association
was soon attacked in the courts, on
the ground that ii was in violation OF
the Sherman antitrust law and also OF
the interstate commerce law The
Trans Missouri first reached the United
states Supreme Court, where in a no.
table opinion the court held that the
association was illegal, being in effect
combination in restraint of trade and
commerce, and therefore violative of
the antitrust law. This opinion was
by divided bench. the division being
very close. viz, Chief Justice Fuller and
Justices Harland, Brewer. Brown and
Peckham holding the traffic association
illegal, while Justices Field, Gray,
Shiras and White filed a dissenting
opinion, upholding the association.
Soon after this decision Justice Field
gave place TO Justice McKenna.
Although the Missouri case was con-
sidered somewhat of test, yet the
Joint Traffic association prepared [ O
make a StAbborn contest In support OF
its existence. The case against Ii was
begun on January Z, 1896, in the United
States Circuit Court, which went
against the government and was af-
firmed by the Court of Appeals. The
government appealed to the United
States Supreme Court. An exception
ally brilliant array of counsel appeared,
including ex-senator .Edmunds. James
g. Carter and Y. j. Phelps. Solicitor
General Richards flied the brief for the
government
The main contention of rhe govern
ment was that the traffic agreement is
combination to prevent competition,
thus constituting contract i'm restraint
of trade or commerce. The answer OF
the association maintained the legality
Of the agreement on the ground that
the vast needs OF commerce require
joint action, and that such action in
sures uniform and just rates and pre-
vents secret and unjust discrimination.
Justice Peckham announced the de-
cision. He said that the court could
distinguish no difference between the
case and that of the Trans Missouri
case decided year ago, which was de-
cided against the railroads. He said
the only new point involved was rs &c
the constitutionality OF the antitrust
act. The court had reached the con-
clusion that. as railroad corporations
performed duties on a senli-pubic char
acter. IL was within the constitutional
power of congress to regulate them as
provided by the antitrust act. The
only question. then, was as TO the poIicy
of congress i'm adopting such measure
and. as TO the questions Of policy, the
court, he said. had nothing TO do.
The opinion. which was very brief
was concurred in by chief Justice Full
Ter and Justices Harlan. Brewer. Brown
and Peckham. Three Justices dissent
ed, namely. Justices Gray. Shiras and
White. Justice AIcKcnna took no part
I'm the case, rs the prosecution OF the
Joint Traffic association was begun
while he was attorr.y general.