The Camden chronicle. (Camden, Tenn.) 1890-current, 1898-10-28
TRAFFIC Trust KN0CEED0DT
SUPREME COURT RENDERS DECI.
SION AGAINST RAILROADS.
VIOLATED THE ANTITRUST Law
The Decision - Great Victory For The 0oT-
eminent ana VIII Bs Far-Reaeh-
ing - liz Enosta.

A Washington special says: The
United States supreme court Monday
decided tho joint traffic association
railroad case in 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 pub
lie, and because of the vast railway
properties represented by the traffic
association. The association was
formed on November 10, 1896, by
thirty-one railways representing the
great trunk lines and their network Of
branches. The purpose Of the associ-
alton as stated in the articles Of agree
ment, was ''to establish and maintain
reasonable and just rates, fares, rules
and regulations on state aud interstate
traffic" A similar association on a
smaller scale was established among
southwestern roads, known as the
Trans-MissOuri association.
These associations were soon attack
ed in the courts on the ground that
they were in violation Of the Sherman
antitrust law, and also Of the inter
state commerce law. The Trans Mis-
souri, first reached the United States
supreme court, where. in a notable
opinion, the court held that the asso-
citation was illegal, because in effect q
combination in restraint Of trade and
commerce, and therefore in violation
Of the antitrust law. This opinion
was held by divided bench, the de-
cisiOn being very close.
Although the Missouri case was
considered somewhat of q test, yet the
Joint traffic association prepared to
make a stubborn contest in support
of its existence. The case against it
was begun on January 7, 1896, in the
United States circuit court for the
southern district Of New York, the
United States being complainant and
the attorney general directing its
course The case went against the
government in the lower courts, the
circuit court dismissing the bill and
the court OF appeals affirming the dis
missal. The government appealed to
the United States supreme court. An
exceptionally brilliant array of coun-
sci appeared for the association and
the several railroads.
Antitrust Law Legal.
4 Justice Peekham announced the de-
cision. He said that the court could
distinguish no difference between this
case and that of the Trans-M Missouri
case, decided a year ago, which was
decided against the railroads. He said
the only new point involved was as to
the constitutionality of the antitrust
act. The court had reached the con,
clusion that if railroad corporations
performed duties of a semi-publiC
character it was within the constitu
tional power of congress to regulate
them as provided by the antitrust act
The only question then was as to the
policy Of congress in adopting such
measure, and as to the questions o
policy the court, he said, had nothing
to do.
The opinion, which was very brief
was concurred in by Chief Justic'
Fuller and Justices Harlan, Brewer
Brown and Peckham. Three Justice
dissented, namely, Justices Gray
Shiras and White. Justice McKenni
took no part in the case as the prose
cution Of the joint tariff association
was begun while he was attorney gen
eral After Justice Peckham had an
/ nounced the opion, Justice Harlan
verbally expressed with some evidenc
of satisfaction, his concurrence, Of
, the same ground, he said, that Sc
forth in the Trans Missouri case.
, Under Mondays decisions the de
, cision of the United States circui
court for the southern district of Ne'
York and of the United States court c
appeals, both Of which were fayora5l
: to the joint tariff association, are re
: yersed.
|