The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1898-10-27
= 4 tBlNE
Joint Traffic Association Declared
by the Federal Supreme
Court
To Be an Organization in Re
straint Of Trade and There
fore Illegal.
Constitutionality of the Sherman
Antitrust Law Fully
Upheld.
Opinion by Peckham, -Four Other
Judges Concurring, and Three
Dissenting.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25.-The United
States supreme court decided the Joint
Traffice Association railroad case il
favor of the United States and against
the railroads.
The case is considered one of the most
important that has ever come before the
supreme court, not only to the railroads,
but to the general public, and because
of the vast railway eproperties repre-
scented by the traffic association The
association was formed on Nov. 49, 1898,
by 81 railways representing the great
trunk lines and their network OF
branches. The purpose of the assoeia-
ton as stated in the articles of agree
ment was ''to establish and maintain
reasonable and just rates, fares and reg
u1ations ON state and interstate traffic.
A similar association, on a smaller
scale, was established among South
western roads, known as the Transmits
souri, association.
Violated the Sherman Law.
These associations were soon attacked
in the courts on the ground that they
We're in violation of the Sherman anti
trust law, and also of the interstate COM
merce law. The Trans Missouri first
reached the United States supreme
court where, in notable opinion. the
court he'll that the association was lille
gal, being in effect a combination in re-
straint OF trade and commerce, and
therefore violative of the antitrust law.
This opinion was by a divided bench
the division being very close viz: Chief
Justice Fuller and Justices Harlan,
Brewer, Brown and Peekham holding
the traffic association illsgal, while JUS
tees Field, Gray, Shiras and White
filed dissenting opinion uphalding the
association. Soon after this decision
Justice Field gave placeto Justice Me-
Kenna.
Made Stubborn Contest
Although the Missouri case was COR
sidered somewhat of test. yet the Joint 1
Traffic association prepared ta makes
stubborn contest in support OF It's ex-.s
istence. The case against 1t was begun
ON Jan. z. 1856, in the United Stateseir-
cult court for the Southern. district OF
New York, the United States being
complainant and the attorney general
directing its course. The Gaze Went,
against the government in Eie &Wez'
courts, the circuit disnGssing the bill
and the court of appeals affirming the
dismissal The government appealed t@'
the United States supreme court. An
exceptionally brilliant array OF counsel
appeared for the association and tie
several railroads, including ex-senator
Edmunds, James c, Carter and E. j.
Phelps. Solicitor General Richards
fled the brief for the government.
The main contention of the govern
ment was that the traffic agreement is
a combination to prevent eofnpetl ton,
thus constituting a contract IN restraint
of trade and commerce. The answer OF
the association maintained the Legality
of the association on the ground that the
vast needs of commerce require joint
action. and that such action insures uni
form and just rates and prevents secret
and unjust determinations.
Decision by Peckham.
Justice Peckham announced the de-
I cision. He said that the court could
distinguish no difference between this
case and that of the Trans Missouri case
decided year ago, which was decided
AGAINST the railroads. He said the only
new point involved was as to the con-
stitutionality of the antitrust act. The
court had reacted the conclusion that
as railroad corporations performed du-
ties Of a semi-public character, it was
within the constitutional power of con-
press to regulate them as prvided by the
antii-trust act. The only question then
was as to the policy of congress in adopt
ING such measure and as to questions
of policy, the court, he said, had moth
ing to do.
The opinion, which was very br1es
was concurred in by Chief Justice Ful
Ter. and Justices Harlan, Brewer, Browl
and Peckham. Three Justices dissented
namely. Justices Gray, Shiras ant
White. Justice McKenna took no par
in the case, as the prosecution OF tn
Joint Traffic association was hegu
while he was attorney general.
Live stock Exchange Exempt
Justice Peckham also announced tn
courts opinion in cases against the Kan
sas City Live Stock Exchange ,operatin
at Kansas City in Western Missouri
The government prosecuted under tn
antitrust law The supreme cou1
holds that the association does not com
under the antitrust law. Justice Hal
Ian, in a dissenting opinion, declare
that such commissions We're rings z
syndicatss, which if extended to OF
sugar, lumber and other staples, woul
place the commerce of the country undo
the control Of few rings and synd
Gates