The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1898-02-25
ONLY BAD TRUSTS
Should Be Restrained Says Mr.
James C. Carter,
Railroad Attorney i'm the Joint
Traffic Case.
HIS Is A GOOD ONE.
Denies That 'sCOmpetitiOn is the
Life of Trade"
Justice Brewer Puts Him on
the Rack.
HIS IS A GOOD ONE.

Washington, Feb 24-The supreme
court of the United States has begun the
hearing in the joint traffic case, in which
the United States seeks to have the agree
ment on the part of the 81 leading roads
o fthe country constituting the traffic as
ISOLATION as organized in 1895, set aside
and declared null and void, and to have
the association enjoined from operatin
under this agreement. The case has
proved to be the means of collecting the
most formidable array of counsel on the
side Of the defense that has been seen in
the court room for many a day. The list
includes ex-senator George F. Edmuns of
Vermont, ex-Minster to England e J.
Phelps and James G. Carter of New York
each of whom it was announced would
speak. Solicitor General Richards an
peared for the government. The time for
the presentation of the case was extended
so as to give the counsel for the railroads
four hours, making six hours for the en-
Mr.. Richards opened the case. He de-
pended largely upon the decision of the
association case as precedent in this
case arguing that there was Dra cficaIIy1
no difference between the agreement in
that case and the agreement of tn roads
which were parties to tn Joint Traffic as
He said there were nine trunk lines en-
Draced IN the association and that the
nc passing through, to or from the west
ern terminus of these lines and thus to
business of the country. He said the
board of managers had not only full con-
sdilOuS mes. OUT tnaI Iney were authOr-
lied to distribute the traffic among the
pdEues 70 the agreement, lie argued that
that in this case, as in the Transmissouri
case, the court was not called upon to deal
with the professions of the members of
the lSsoclaUOn, out with the queS ton as
to the violation of the law, which was
evident The point was whether the
agreement Restraints trade and commerce,
and that it did the government had no
doubt. Compared to the agreement in this
case, he said, the agreement in the Trans
missouri case was crude and inefficient
instrument for sitting trade.
Mr.. Richards was followed by Mr.. Car
ter for the traffic association. He denied
the right Of the government to an injunc-
ton in the case.
He contended that, instead of being in
restraint of trade, the Joint Traffic
sociatiOn agreement was actually intend
ed to promote trade and commerce. He
argued that regulation did not necessari-
~ mean restraint, and that the word was
only used in the statute as applicable to
injurious restraint he viewed the cir
cumstances under which the antitrust
law was enacted, saying it grew out of
the Democratic taunts against the Re
publicans that they were favorable to
but congress had not intended to demol-
ish all trusts-Only those that were in
said, IN reply to question from Justice
Brewer. that any injury to trade must
be an injury to the general public. This
brought from Justice Brewer another ques-
ton by way of illustration. The Stand
ard Oil company had he said, been pop
larry supposed to increase trade at the
expense of the public; was it not intend
ed that such a combination should be
restrained IN the interest of the pubHc2
Replying to this Mr.. Carter said that
he had no doubt that this consideration
was IN the minds OF many though not in
the minds OF the legislators and this fea-
ture was dealt with by the law under the
head of monopoly.
Mr.. Carter drew the conclusion that al
most any agreement was only a restraint
upon competition and he said that com
petition was only an accident to trade
and was not always essential to the pros
perity of trade Indeed, it was sometimes