Daily new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1897-1906, 1898-10-25
MoRcANTowN, OCTOBER %. 1898
AGAINST THE RAILROADS.
United States Supreme Court Decided
Joint Traffic Association Viola
ton of Antitrust Law.

WARRINGTON, Oct 25.-The supreme
court rendered az opinion on the So
called Joint Traffic association case,
which has been pending over year.
The court, by vote of 5 to 3, re.
versed the findings of the court below
and held against the Joint Traffic asso-
citation.
The opinio~ was concurred in by
Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Har-
Ian, Brewer, Brown and Peckham.
Three justices dissented, namely, JUS
tees, Gray, Shiras and White Justice
McKenna took no part in the case, as
the prosecution of the Joint Traffic as
ISOLATION was begun, while he was at
torney general After Justice Peck
ham had announced the opinion Justice
Harlan verbally expressed with some
evidence OF satisfaction his concurrence,
on the same ground, he said, as that
set forth insthe transmissouri case.
The Joint Traffic association was
formed III 1895 of all the railroads be-
tween the east and west for the purpose
Nf maintaining uniform freight and
passenger rates. A branch OF this as
aoclatlon known as the Transmissouri
Traffic association was formed of the
southwestern railroads. Proceedings
were first brought under the Sherman
antitrust law against the branch asso-
citation by the United States III the dis
trict court OF Kansas on the ground
that it was an illegal combination in re-
stralnt of interstate commerce and the
court decided that it was not. This
opinion, on appeal to the supreme court.
pvaG PpuarSpl nv a 1iui6nd pourt
This opinion was by a divided bench,
the division being very close, viz: Chief
Justice Fuller and Justices Harlan,
Brewer, Brown and Peckham holding
the traffic association illegal, while Jus
tees Field, Gray, Shiras and White
filed q dissenting opinion, upholding
the association. Soon after this decision
Justice Field gave place to Justice Nc
Kenna.
Although the Missouri case was con
sidered somewhat of test, yet the
Joint Traffic association prepared tc
make q stubborn contest i'll support of
its existence. The case against it was
begun on Jan. Z, 1896, in the United
States circuit court for the southern dis
trict of NeN York, the United States
being complainant and the attorney gen.
eral directing its course. The case went
against the government in the lower
courts the circuit court dismisslng the
bill and the court of appeals affirming
the dismissal. The government APP
pealed TO the United States supreme
court. An exceptionally brilliant ar
ray of counsel appeared for the associa.
hon and the several railroads, includ-
ing ex-senator Edmunds, James G. Car
ter and h. j. Phelps. Solicitor General
Richards fled the brief for the govern
meat
I}s5 na'i contention OF the govern
me- was rnat the traffic agreement is
"a combination 10 prevent competition.
thus conal uting contract in restraint
of trade o. commerce. The answer OF
the association maintained the legality
of the agre-m ent on the ground that
the vast needs of commerce require
joint acton and that such action in
sures uniform and just rates and pre-
vents secret and unjust Discrimination