La Junta tribune., 1898-11-09
RESULTS OF the DECISION.
John X. X chArd. Take of Eject of
JOINT Trs f.is ftndinE.


Washington, u. c.. Oct. 2S-Solicitor
General John X. Richards. who had
charge of the governments side OF the
Joint Traffic Association case before
the United States Supreme Court. was
questioned to-day, after he had an OPP
portunity to read its full text, as TO
the effect of last Mondays decision oil
the railroad interests of the country.
Mr.. Richards said:
The Sherman antitrust act declares
Illegal every contract. combination in
the form of trust or otherwise. or con-
spiracy In restraint of trade or COM
merce among the several states The
joint traffic case clinches the decision
in the transinissouri case, holding that
the law applies to railroads and pro
hibits all agreements in restraint Of
trade and commerce. In addition. II
holds explicitly that the law Is con
stitutional when thus applied. even to
reasonable agreements in restraint Of
trade.
The consritHionality OF the act
WAS not raised In the transmissouri
case, but in the joint us.ific case. Mr.
Phelps directed his entire argument TO
this point. urging that Congress could
not declare Illegal and prohibit reason
able contracts. The freedom of con.
tract guaranteed by the constitution
forbade il. he insisted The answer of
the court In this WAS that railroads
enjoy public franchises, they perform
public services and when engaged in
interstate commerce are subject 10 the
regulations of Congress.
what the ultimate result of the de
cision will be 1t is impossible 30 say.
Cases which establish important priu-
ciples usually affect, not simply courts.
but legislatures, in way one cannot
foresee. 1t is gratifying to believe tina;
the sentiment Of the people against in
furious monopolies can find legitimate
expression through laws passed by
their representatives as enforced by
the court
II know it has been and is insisted
that competition destroys rates. and
railroads. too, but nevertheless there is
a settled sentiment among the people
against railroad monopolies and in
favor of unrestrained competition.
Most of the states. some In their con
stitutions and some in their laws, have
prohibited the consolidation of COM
peting lines. Congress in the inter
state act prohibited pooling, which Is
simply one mode of preventing com
petition to keep up rates.
There are men OF thought who in
sist that regulation should supplant
competition. but the people do not yet
think so. In fact, competition is the
recognized underlying basis of social
and Industrial and political life in this
country. Competition goes along with
freedom, with Independent action. The
country was founded on the principles
of liberty and equality. Its founders
sought to secure to every citizen an
equal chance under the lava fair
showing in the race Of life.
Under this decision 1t Is left to open
competition to secure reasonableness
in rates. 1t Is true that the common
law requires that rates shall be rea-
sonable. So does the Interstate COM
merce law. But this is n mere declara-
tion, and there Is no adequate remedy
to enforce the barren right. Congress
has not given the Interstate Commerce
Commission power over rates. 1t has
relied upon competition to keep them
fair. Whether Congress will see fit to
take the railroads out OF the operation
of the natural law of trade, and for In
dependent competition substitute gov
ernmental regulation, remains to be
seen"