Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-10-25
AGAINST THE ROADS,
Joint Traffic Association Case
So Decided,
| SUPREME COURTS V|EW
No DiStiDsuiShable Difference Between
Joint Traffic and TranS-MiSSOuri Cases.
JU USTICES
DISSENT,
TER EE
Justice McKenna Takes No Part
in the Observation-Disclosures in
Favor of kansas City livestock
Exchange.
ExchaB ge.

WASHINGTON. D. c.. October 2t-The !
limited States Supreme Court to-day de-
cided the Joint Traffic Association case
in favor of the United States and against
the railroads. The case IS considered one
Of the most important that have ever
come before the Supreme Court, not only
10 railroads. but TO the general public
and because of the vast properties repre-
sented by the traffic association.
The association was formed on No
vember IS, 1895, by thirty-one railways
representing the great trunk lines and
their network of branches. The purpose
of the association, as stated In the arti-
cles Of agreement, was "to establish and
maintain reasonable and just rates, rules,
and regulations in State and interstate
traffic" A similar association. on
smaller scale was established among
southwestern roads, and was known as
the Trans Missouri Association. These
associations were soon attacked In the
| courts on the ground that they were in
violation OF the sherman antitrust law,
and also Of the interstate commerce law
| ANS-MISSOURI DECISION.
| The Trans-AIssouri Association first
| reached the Supreme Court, where. in a
| notable decision the court held that II
| was illegal and In violation of the anti
| trust law. This opinion was by divided
| bench. the division being very close-viz.,
| Chief-Justce Fuller and Justices Harlan
| Brewer, Brown, and Peckham holding
| the traffic association Illegal. while JUS
tices Field. Gray, ShIras. and White
| filed a dissenting opinion. upholding the
association. soon after this decis
ion Justice Field gave place to justice
McKenna.
! Although the Missouri case was con
| sidered somewhat of a test, yet the Join
| Traffic Association appeared TO make
stubborn contest I'm support of fits exist
ence. The case against it was begul
January s. 1896. in the United States Cir
cult court for the Southern District o
New York. the United states being com
plainant. and the Attorney-General bein
| IT'S counsel. The case went against tn
government in the lower court the Cir
? cult Court dismissng the bill, and In
Court Of Appeals affirming the dismissal
BRIGHT ARRAY OF COUNSEL
Supreme Court. An exceptionally brigh
array OF counsel appeared for the asso
? citation and the several railroads, incluo
ing Senator Edmunds. Solicitor-Generl
Richards filed the brief for the govern
mont The main contention OF the GOV
ernment was that the traffic agreemef
Is a combination to prevent competition
thus constituting q contract in RESTRAIN
, | Of trade or commerce. The answer
the association maintained the legalit
of the agreement on the ground that IN
, | vast needs Of commerce require Joli
= action. and that such action insures un
form and Just rates and prevents secr'
and unjust determinations.
THE DECISION.
L Justice Peckham announced the dec
= sion. He said that the court could dli
- tinpuish no difference between this ca.
$ and the Trans-Missouri case decided
y year ago. which was decided against u
y railways. He said the only new point Il
J. volved was as 20 the constituuonallty
e .ba ANTITRUST act The court had reach'
II the conclusion that as railroad corpor
tions performed duties OF seml-puol
character. it was within the constitute
al mower Of Congress 10 regulate thei
as provided by the antitrust act ~
n. only question then was as 10 the pom
Of Congress adopting such measure, al
AS to questions OF policy, the court
a. said. had nothing to do.
n The opinion was very brief. and W
he concurred I'm by Chief-Justce Fuller "a
n. | Justices Harlan, Brewer, Brown, "a
,d pectbom Three Justices diss'nte'
rs namely. Justices Gray, Shlras' d
he ! White Justice McKcnna took no part
o tba case as the prosecution Of the Joi
Trafic Association was begun while
10 was Attorney-GeneraL
he HARLAN's CONCURRENCE.
n After Justice Peckham had announc
. the decision Justice Harlan yerDaly
es '-ossed with some evidence Of sausf.
-, ZION his concurrence, on the same grou
81 na did as that set forth in the Tral
"a Missouri case. t.,.
10 rrnder the decision to-day the decisic
SO - ,ha Irnited States Circuit Court for
Sonthern District Of New York ana
n the United States Court Of Appeals %
~ - uvbich were favorable 10 the 10
ne rraffic Association. are reversed.
10 KANSAS CITY CASE.
a Justice Peckham also announced
,uI .o,,rt,s opiuion in cases against the h
~. CIV Livestock Exchange, o2erat
rts Korsas CITY and Western MssOl
In The government prosecuted under
ver anti-trust law. The Supreme Court no
dig mt the association does not come un
the tbe antitrust law. Justice Harlan \
.ict dissenting opinion, declared that ;
combinations were rings and syndica :,
Ia. a,bicb II extended 10 oil, sugar salt II
the 49, and other staples, would place
DC oo,nmerce Of the country under the
g,i'' -roI Of a few rings and syndicates.
THE ANDERSEN CASE.
Tho case OF John Andersen Tor
.or ~ ~ the schooner Olive Pecler.
nm. o"ston who was convicted Of the mui
at =" the high seas Of the master and
lew o' " The vessel. was brought again TO
ugh S,,rrarne Court to-day, on an appeal
.nty .he tinted States District Court FOR
Ass, Tastern va District Of Virginia The
h' tr,ct r,It Court denied the application Of
darsen's attorneys for writ OF nal
!. corpus. and an appeal was soi,.s taken to to
Q 900 Tni.ad states Supreme Court. TO
for ,he court granted Andersen,s attorne
a~,rg which was set for November