The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-02-26
Arguments Concluded In the United
States Supreme Court.
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
BE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
THE RAILROADS.
Mr. Richards Makes the Closing Ar
gument For the Government
What ''Restrains Trade'-The
Case Taken Under Amusement.

Washington, Feb 25.-The argument
of the joint traffic association case was
concluded in the United States supreme
court today and the case was taken
under advisement. Ex-senator Ed
munds was the first speaker. He APP
peared on behalf of the railroads. The
object of the associations agreement
was, he contended, only to secure JUS
tice and fair play among the roads and
TO the public at large, all being inter-
ested in securing uniform and stable
rates.
He dwelt upon the Importance of pro-
per cooperation between connecting
lines and said that the agreement COM
piled fully with the legal requirements
concerning them. The antitrust law
was made the subject of a critical eX-
animation and the suggestion was
made that the court, with great pro
priety, could review its decision in the
trans Missouri case, in which II was
held that this law was applicable to
railroads. He criticized the decision
as somewhat indefinite in its require
ments, holding that the only restraint
referred to in it was that of a general
character and that it was not to be in
terpreted as referring to restraints
which were not injurious TO trade. Mr..
Phelps for the railroads contended that
the regulation of competition was a
state matter and not a national matter,
nor in any way involved in the regula-
ton of interstate commerce: but said
if it was to be held to be national
matter. contracts for the regulation of
competition must be decided each upon
ITS Individual merits. Mr.. Phelps as
serted that there was no public neces-
sity for such infringement upon private
iisnts a. IS conc tnp-dteu II the pio-
ceeding.
Mr.. Richards followed Mr.. Phelps in
closing the argument for the govern
ment. He spoke of the vast interests
involved, saying that on the one side
81 of the great railroads, representing
81, 500 600 900 of capital, were arrayed
against the general public. Mr. Rich
ards replied to Mr.. Carriers contention
that an agreement for the restraint of
competition was not restraint of
trade, asserting the contrary to be true,
and that a contract which stiles COM
petition does restrain trade.
The traffic associations agreement,
Mr. Richards contended, wipes out all
competition by leaving it to a central
authority to make the rates, thus TAX
ing that power from the individual
lines. The interstate commerce COM
mission could not prescribe rates, and
it was not reasonable that the railroads
should be allowed to constitute
tribunal of their own with that power.
He said that to give great railroad as
sociations the power to fix rates would
be TO render them so obnoxious that
the public would not tolerate them.
Mr. Richards maintained that no court
had ever held that the freedom of con-
tracts or the part of railroads went to
the extent of allowing roads to enter
into contracts which would give them
a monopoly by fixing arbitrary rates.
Rein fa1YhlfP n nancipS the roads
properly held to be subject to govern
ment control in the making of con-
tracts among themselves. Mr.. Rich
ards here concluded.