The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-10-25
AGREEMENT is ILLEGAL.
It Is in Restraint Of Trade, and
Congress Has Power As Reg
ulation of Interstate Com
merce to Forbid Com
binatl0nS.

WASHINGTON. Oct. H-The United
state, supreme court today decided the
iotnt traffic association railroad case in IA
yor Of the United States ard against the
railroads. The case was considered one
of tho most important that has ever come
before the supreme court. not only 10 the
railroads, but to the general public, be-
cause OF the vast railroad properties repre-
sented by the traffic association.
The association was formed November Is.
1895. by thir,y-one railways representing
the great trunk lines. The purpose OF the
association. as stated in the agreement.
was 70 establish and MAINTAIN reasonable
and Just rates of fares. and the regulations
CT state and Interstate traffic A similar
association on a smaller scale was formed
among the southwestern railroads. known
as the transnsssouri association, and the
supreme court, IN a notable opinion, de-
clared this association Illegal.
Justice Peckham announced the decision
today. In the opinion he gives a history
from the early stages Of the litigation and
the main issues between the United States
government and the association. After
pointing out the similarity between the
transmiS.our1 case and the present one.
the opinion says:
so far as the establishment OF rates and
fares Is concerned, we do not see any sub
stantia, difference between this agree'nen.
and TIE one set forth in the transrnissouri
case In that Gaze the rates were es'ah-
Iished by the agreement. and any company
violating TIE schedule OF rates as estah-
hshed under the agreement was liable 10
a penalty A company could withdraw from
the association, giving thirty days notice.
hut while IL continued a member II was
bound To charge the rates fixed under
penalty fer not 80 doing. In this case. the
companies are bound 10 charge rates hxed
upon originally in the agreement or subse-
ouen;ly recommended by the board oe
managers and the failure TO observe their
recommendations is deemed violation OF
the agreement The only alternative Is
the adoption Of resolution by the board of
directors OF another company providing for
A change Of rates 80 far as that company is
concerned. and TIE service Of copy there
OF on the board OF managers II is this pro-
vison wh.sn :s referred to by counsel az
mos, material and important. and one
which constitutes material and important
distinction between The two agreements
After holding that the propositions o. the
two cases are not essentially different. the
opinion proceeds:
The natural ard dirsct effect % the
;wo agreements is the same, viz: To
maintain rates af higher level tran would
otherwise prevail. ard the differences be-
tween them are not sufficiently important
10 call for different judgments on the t"o
cases on airy sues grounds"
TIE opinion then takes NJ the consti,n-
ticnaity Of the antitrust law affecting
railroads Justice PeckhSm says that ii
is worthy Of remark that the question ~aS
never raised o. hinse9 q, upon the argu-
mart II the former case
The fact ,hat 10 one % the many as.uts
ard at3e counsel for The transportation
companies r. That case raised an objection
of such conclusive character. Il well found
ed. IS strong evidence that the reasons
showing the ingaiidity ot the act as con-
strued CO not lie or the surface and were
not then apparent 10 those counsel,
Upon no constifutioaal!ty q
th@ act il = rot earnestly contenaed that