La Junta tribune., 1898-10-29
COURT DECISIONS.
CORPORATIONS MEET DEFEAT.
Cnited State. suprsms Court smAshes ths
Trnmc Pool and the luiaois supreme
Court Decides Ag.ia.t the Pullman
Company.

States Supreme court to-day deciucu
the Joint Traffic Association railroad
case in favor of the United States and
against the railroads.
The case was considered one of the
most important that has ever come
from the Supreme Court. not only TO
the railroads, but to the general public,
and because. OF the vast railroad prop
critics represented by the traffic asso-
ciatioD.
The association was formed Novem-
ber 10. 1898, by ,hirty-one railroads
representing til. great trunk lines and
their network OF branches. The pur-
pose of the association, as stated In
the articles OF agreement. WAS TO es-
tabilsh and maintain reasonable and
lust rates fares and regulations ON
state and Interstate traffic.
A slmilnr association. on a similar
scale was formed among southwestern
roads, known as the Transmlssouri As
| soClntlon.
These associations Were soon attack
I ed in the courts on the ground that
| they were in violation of the Sherman
antitrust law and also OF the inter
| commerce law. The Transmissouri
first reached the United States SUI
preme Court. where In n notable opin-
lon. the court held that the association
was Illegal being IN effect. "A combina-
tion in restraint OF rrnde and com
merce and therefore violaiiye OF the
| antitrust law.
| This opinion was by divided bench,
! the division being close. viz: Chief JUS
| tIcr Fuller and Justices Harlan. Brew
cr. Brown and reckham 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 10 Justice
McKennn.
| Although the Missouri case was con
| sidered somewhat Of "A test. yet the
Joint Traffic Association prepared TO
| make Il stubborn contest in support OF
| It's existence The case against 1t was
begun January :. 1896. in the United
States Circuit Court for the southern
| district OF New York, the United
| States being complainant and the at
torncy general directing it's course
/ The ease went against the government
! In the lower courts. the Circuit Court
! dlsmlssIng 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 several railroads. including ex-
| Senator EJmuuds. James e. Carter
and T.. j. Phelps. solicitor General
Richards fled the bglef for the gov
| ernmcut. The main contention of the
| government was that the traffic agree
| ment IL a combination TO prevent com
| petition. thus constituting contract
| In restraint OF trade or commerce.
| ar hs axxnriufinn In
| tanned the legality Of the agreement
| 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 discrimination.
| Justice Peckham announced the de
| clsion. He said that the court could
| distinguish no difference between this
and that OF tine Trlnsinlssouri case de-
| cIded one yenr ago, which was de-
| cidcd against the railroads, He said
| tn. only new point involved was as
to the constltu,lonnlity OF the anti
| trust act.
The court had reached the conclu-
sion that as railroad corporations per-
/ formed duties OF 4 semI-public charac-
! ter. il was within the constitutional
| power of Congress 10 regulate them
/ as provided by the antitrust act. The
only question was AS 10 the policy of
| Congress In adopting such n measure
and MS 10 questions Of policy. the
court. he said, had nothing to do.
| The opinion, which was brief. was
| concurred in by Chief Justice Fuller
and Justices Harlan. Brewer. Brown
and Peckham. Three Justices dis
sented. namely. Justices Gray, Shiras
and White. Justice Mckenna took no
| ~ IN ft,a "a this. t1rs nf
the Joint Traffic Association was be
gun while he was attorney general.
After Justice Peckham had an
nouuced the opinion. Justice Harlan
, verbally expressed with some evidence
of satisfaction his concurrence on the
! same ground, he said as that set forth
In the Transmissouri CASE.
Under the decision to-day the dccis-
Ions OF the United States Circuit Court
for the Southern district OF New York.
and of the United States Court OF Ap-
peals. both Of which We're favorable
TO the Joint Traffic Association. are re-
| yersed.
Chicago. Oct 24-Thc Supreme
Court OF Illinois decided to-day that
the action Instituted by ex-Attorncy
General Maurice +. Moloney during
his term OF office to compel the Pull
man Palace Car Company to restrict
It's operations to charter limitations
should stand. and rcmanded the case
to the Circuit Court of Cook county,
where IL viii now be tried.
Ex-.>itorncy General Moloney had
contendcd that the Pullman Company
was Incorporated simply for the pur-
pose of making. selling and leasing
railroad and street cars.
His object was to compel the com
pany TO retire from the real estate.
gas. water. heating. brickmaking and
other enterprises conducted by II mt
the town Of Pullman and in Chicago.
The case was fought by counsel for
the company and was thrown out by
| the (irpiiif Courf Counsel for tho