The Bolivar bulletin. (Bolivar, Tenn.) 1888-1946, 1898-10-28


Washington, Oct. "a The United
States supreme court decided the joint
traffic association railroad case in IA
vor of the United States, and against
the railroads.
A Most I'm o -tant Case.
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 pub
lie, and because of the vast railroad
properties represented by the Joint
Traffic association. The association
was formed on November 10, 1895, by
81 railways, representing the great
trunk lines and their net work of
branches. The purpose of the associa-
ton, as stated in the articles of agree
ment, was ''to establish and maintain
reasonable and just rates, fares and
regulations on state and interstate
traffic"
A similar association, on a smaller
scale, was formed among southwest
ern roads, known as the Transmits
souri, association.
Alleged Violation of the Antitrust Law.
These associations were soon at
tackled in the courts on the ground
taat they were in violation of the
Sherman antitrust law, and also of
the interstate commerce law. The
transmissouri first reached the United
States supreme court, where, in no
table opinion, the court held that the
association was illegal, being in eff
feet a 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 Harlan,
Broker, Brown and Peckam holding
the traffic association illegal, whil3
Justices Field, Gray, Shiras and White
filed dissenting opinion upholding
the association. Soon after this de-
cision Justice Field gave place to JUS
tice McKe1na.
The Contest a Stubborn One.
Although the Missouri case was con-
sidered somewhat of attest, yet the
Join Traffic association prepared to
make a stubborn contest in support of
begun on January z, 1896, in the Unit
ed States circuit court for the south
ern district of New York, the United
States being the complainant and the
attorney general directing its course.
The case went against the government
il: the lower courts, the circuit court
dismissing the BILL and the court of
appeals affirming the dismissal. The
government appealed to the United
States supreme court. An exceptionally
brilliant array of counsel appeared for
the association and the several rail
roads, including ex-senator Edmunds,
James c. Carter and e. j. Phelps.
The Governments Case.
SoIicitor-General Richards filed the
brief for the government. The main
contention of the government was that
traffic agreement is combination to
prevent competition, thus constituting
contract in restraint of trade or
commerce. The answer of the associa-
ton maintained the legality of the
aereement, on the ground that the
vast needs of commerce require joint
action, and that such action insures
uniform and just rates and prevents
secret and unjust determinations.
Three Justices Dissented.
The opinion, which was very brief,
was announced by Justice Peckham,
and was concurred in by Chief Justice
Fuller and Justices Harlan, Brewer,
Brown and Peckham. Three justices
dissented, namely, Justices Gray,
ShiraS and White Justice McKenua
took no part in the case.