The Saint Paul globe., 1898-02-25

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24-The su-
preme court of the United States today
began the hearing in the joint traffic
/ case in which the United States seeks
10 nave agreement on the part Of the
thirty-one leading roads of the country,
constituting the traffic association, as
| formed in 1895, set aside and declared
null and void. and to have the asso-
| citation enjoined from operating under
| this agreement.
The case has proved to be the means
! OF collecting the most formidable array
| or counsel on the side Of the defense
that has been seen in the court room
for many a day. The list included:
Ex-senator George F. Edmunds of
Vermont: ex-Minister to England E J.
Phelps, and Hon. James c. Carter, OF
New York, each of whom, 1t was an
nounced. would speak. Solicitor Gen
eral Richards appeared for the govern
ment.
The time for the presentation of the
case was extended so as to give the
| counsel for the railroads four hours,
making six hours for the entire hear
ing.
Mr. Richards opened the case. He
depended largely upon the decision of
the supreme court in the Trans Mis-
souri, Freight association case as a
precedent in this case, arguing that
there was practically no difference be-
tween the agreement in that case and
the agreement of the roads which were
parties to the Joint Traffic association
For the Roads.
Mr.. Richards was followed by Mr.
Carter for the traffic association. He
denied the right of the government to
ar injunction in the case The subject
he said in his Introduction. was of vast
Importance not only to the railroads
themselves. but to the general business
of the country at large. Mr. Carter
said there were four points involved in
the controversy, as follows:
Ffrst-Wheather the method Of procedure
by resorting 10 court OF equity was per-
nnissible.
IN restraint Of trade and commerce.
Th1rd-Wbether IL the agreement is not
IN restraint OF trade. II is a conspiracy to
Fourth-Whether 1t embraces e pooling
agreement contrary TO the interstate com
merce law.
Taking up these points in their order, Mr..
Carter contended that the common law
remedy was the reasonable one and that II
the government sought a remedy through
methods in equity it must make It's reason
for so doing plain
Mr.. Carter contended that the agreement
was not q violation of the antitrust &c.
in restraint OF trade.
His argument on this point was on the
line that regulation did not necessarily mean
In the statute as applicable to injurious re-
straint
In conclusion Mr. Carter said that II such
agreements as that of the traffic association
could not be enforced one OF three things
must happen Either all railroad transporsa-
tion must be abandoned, all the roads must
consolidate or all competing roads must be
found daily violating g criminal law. The
hrst two alternatives were not likely to oc-
cur and inevitably the third must.
In other words, said Justice Brewer
tnterrupting, the railroads are to be ex-
pected to disobey the law unless they are
allowed to give a bond to one another to
obey it,
In reply TO this observation Mr. Carter
said: 1T Is possible to put such obligations
on men that it is not possible for human
nature to observe them
Mr.. Carter spoke for two and half hours
holding the courts attention until the hour
of adjournment.
Tomorrow Messrs. Edmuuds and Phelps will
be heard and Mr.. Richards will reply. 1t is
probable that the entire day will be consumed
by them.