The daily morning journal and courier., 1898-10-25
THE JOINT TRAFFIC CASE
'. s. SUPREME COURT SAYS ASSOCI-
 ALTON IS ILLEGAL.

'. s. SUPREME COURT SAYS 4SSOCI-
 ALTON IS ILLEGAL.
 Combination of Railroads for Regula- ton of Rates Declared to be in Re straint of Trade-sherman Anti-trust Law wConstitutionaI-Kan City Live Stock Cases.
 Washington Oct. 24.-The supreme court to-day rendered an opinion on the so-called Joint Traffic association case, which has been pending over year. The court by vote of to (Justices Cray Shiras and White dissenting) re- versed the findings of the court below and held against the Joint Traffic as- sociation. Incidentally the findings of the court affirmed the constitutionality of the antitrust law. Justice McKen- ma took no part in the decision.
 The Joint Traffic association was formed in 1895 of all the principal rail- roads between the east and west for the purpose of maintaining uniform freight and passenger rates between the competing railroads which were members. A branch of this association, known as the Trans Missouri Traffic association, was formed of the south western railroads.
 Proceedings were first brought under the Sherman antitrust law against the branch association by the United States in the district court of Kansas, on the ground that 1t was an illegal combina- ton in restraint of interstate com- merce, and the court decided that it was not. This opinion, on appeal to the supreme court, was reversed by divided court in an elaborate opinion by Justice Peckham. The court held that while the rates were not unreason- able, the association was in restraint of interstate commerce.
 Proceedings on similar ground were then instituted against the Joint Traf- fic association in the circuit court of the southern district of New York. Judge Lacombe dismissed the bill, hold ing that the association was not an il- legal one under the provisions of the antitrust law, and the court of appeals concurred in this opinion. The govern ment took an appeal to the supreme court of the United States, the case be- ing heard last February, when an im- posing array of legal talent, including former Senator Edmunds, former Min ister Phelps and James c. Carter, ap- peared for the railroads.
 Justice Peckham announced the opin- ion to-day. The questions involved, he said were very similar to those in- volved in the Missouri case, and suggested similar result.
 Counsel for the association, however, raised some new points, one of which was that the statute as construed in the trans-Missouri case was unconsti- tutional, in that it unduly interfered with the liberty of the individual and took away from him the right to make contracts regarding his own affairs, which was guaranteed him by the con- stitution.
 The whole case of the government, says the opinion, rested on the allega- ton that the joint traffic agreement was a contract or combination, in re- straint of trade and unlawful on that account. After quoting this opinion in the former case, Justice Peckham says that the bill of complaint in that case, while alleging an illegal and unlawful intent on the part of the railroad com- panies in entering into the agreement, also alleged that by means of the agreement the trade, traffic and com merce in the region of the country af- fected by the agreement had been and were monopolized and restrained, in- jured and retarded. These allegations were denied by the defendants.
 The court also decided two other cases brought under the antitrust law. These were the Kansas City Live Stock association cases, which the court be- low decided were in restraint of trade. This judgment was reversed on the ground that members of the Live Stock Exchange were not engaged in the in- terstate commerce, and were therefore not amenab1e to the Jaw. Justice liar Ian strongly dissented from this opin- ion If the methods employed by the Live Stock Exchange were not fully un- der the term "boycott" he was unable otherwise to designate it's actions, he said.