The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1898-10-24
A GREAT VICTORY
Joint Traffic Association Case
Decided by Supreme Court
In Favor of the Government and
Against the Railroads.
COMBINE is ILLEGAL.
Is in Violation of Sherman
Antitrust Law,
And the Law Regulating Inter
state Commerce.
RIGHT OF CONGRESS
To Regulate Railroads is At
tirmed by the Court.
Justices Gray, Shiras and dWhite
Dissent.
And the Law Regulating Inter
state Commerce.
RIGHT OF CONGRESS
To Regulate Railroads is At
firmed by the Court.
Justices Gray, Shiras and White
Dissent.

Washington, Oct. 24.-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
from the supreme court, not only to the
railroads, but to the general public be-
cause of the vast railway properties
represented by the traffic association.
The association was formed on NOvem-
Der 19, 1895, by 81 railroads representing
the great trunk lines and their network
of branches. The purpose of the asso-
citation, as stated in the articles of
agreement was Ito establish and main
tain reasonable and just rates, fares
and regulations on state and interstate
traffic.
A similar association on a smaller
scale was formed among southwestern
roads, known as the Transmissouri as
sociation.
History of the Case.
These associations were soon attacked
in the courts on the ground that they
were in violation of the Sherman anti
trust law, and also Of the Interstate
reached the United States supreme
court, where in a notable opinion, the
court held that the association was il
legal being in effect combination in
restraint Of trade and commerce and
therefore Violative of the antitrust
law. This opinion was by a divided
bench, the division being very close, viz:
Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Har-
Ian, Brewer, Brown and Peckham hold
ing the traffic association illegal, while
Justices Field, Gray, Shiras and White
filed dissenting opinion uphOlding the
association.
Soon after this decision, Justice Field
gave place to Justice McKenna. AL
though the Missouri case was consider
ed somewhat of a test, yet the Joint
Traffic association prepared to make a
stubborn contest in support of its eX-
istence. The case against it was begun
on January Z, 1895, in the United States
circuit court for the southern district of
New York, the United States being
complainant and the attorney general
directing its course. The case went
against the government in the lower
courts, the circuit court dismissing the
bill and the court of appeals affirming
the dismissal The government appeal
ed to the United States supreme court
An exceptionally brilliant array of
counsel appeared for the association
and several railroads, including eX-Sen-
ator Edmunds, James c. Garter and E,
J. Phelps, Solicitor General Richards
filed the brief for the government. The
main contention Lne government was
that the traffic agreement is a cOmbina-
ton to prevent competition thus con-
Stitutlng 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 commerce require joint
action and that such action inSureS uni
form and just rates and prevents secret
and unjust Determinations.
The Courts Opinion.
Justice Peckham announced the decis-
ion. He said that the court could dis
tinguiSh no difference between this and
that of the Transmissouri case decided
a year ago, which was decided against
the railroads. He said the only new
point involved was to the constitutionaI-
ity Of the trust act. The court had
reached the conclusion that as railroad
corporations performed duties of a
semi-publ' c chara cter, it was in the con-
stitutiOnal power of congress to regulate
them as provided by the antitrust act.
The only question then was as to the
policy of congress in adopting such a
measure and as to questions of policy
the court, he said. had nothing to do.
The opinion which was brief, was con
CURED in by, Chief Justice Fuller and
Justices Harlan, Brewer, Brown and
Peckham. Three justices dissenting
namely, Justices Gray, Shras and
White. Justice McKenna took no part
in the case as the prosecution of the
Joint Traffic association was begun
while he was attorney general After
Just ce Peckham had announced the
opinion, Justice Harlan verbally ex-
pressed with some evidence of satisfac-
ton, his concurrence on the same
ground, he said, as that set forth in the
TranSmtsSOuri case.
Under the decision today the decis-
ions of the L. S. circuit court. for the
southern district of New York. and of
the [. s. court of appeals, both of which
were faVOra Bile to the Joint Traffic assO-
citation, are reversed.