The herald., 1898-10-29
JOINT TRAFFIC CASE
AND EFFECT OF THE RECENT
DECISION
Gratified to Discover That the United
States Railroad Monopolies Are
Not All-Powerful
Associated Press Special Wire.

| WASHINGTON, Oct. 28.-Solicitor
General John X. Richards who had charge
OF the government $ side OF the joint traffic
association case before the supreme court
OF the United States, and whose briiliant
argument, occupying two days, has been the
subject Of much favorable comment by
members of the supreme court bench and
bar, was questioned today, after he had an
opportunity to read its full text, as to the
effect of last Mondays decision on the rail-
road interests OF the country.
Mr. Richards said:
The Sherman antitrust act declares llle-
gal every contract, combination In the form
OF a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy In re-
stralnt OF trade or commerce among the sew
eral states
"'The joint traffic case clinches the decis-
jon in the transnissouri case, holding that
the law applies to railroads, and prohibits
all agreements in restraint or interstate trade
and commerce, whether the restraint be
reasonable or otherwise; in addition, it holds
explicitly that the law is constitutional
| when thus applied, even to reasonable agree.
ments in restraint of trade.
'rhe constitutionality of the act was not
raised in the Transmissouri case, but is in
the joint traffic case. Mr.. Phelps directed
his entire argument to this point, urging
that congress could not declare illegal and
prohibit reasonable contracts. The freedom
of contract guaranteed by the constitution
forbade it, he insisted. The answer of the
court to this was that railroads enjoy public
franchises, they perform public services and
when engaged in interstate commerce are
subject to the regulations of congress.
What the ultimate result of the decision
will be it is impossible to say. Cases which
establish important principles usually af-
feet, not simply courts, but legislatures, in
la way one cannot foresee. 1t is gratifying
to believe that the sentiment of the people
against injurious monopolies can find legit-
Innate expression through laws passed by
their representatives as enforced by the
courts. | know it has been and it is in
sisted that competition destroys rates and
settled sentiment among the people against
railroad monopoles and in favor of unre-
strained competition. Most of the states,
some in their constitutions and some in
their laws, have prohibited the consolda-
tion of competing lines. The interstate act
prohibited pooling, which is simply one
method of preventing competition to keep
up rates.
There are men of thought who insist that
regulation should supplant competition, but
the people do not think so yet In fact,
competition is the recognized underlying
basis of social and industrial and political
life in this country, Competition goes along
The country was founded on the principles
Of liberty and equality. It's founders sought
ito secure to every citizen an equal chance
under the lava fair showing in the race
of life.
''In the decision it is left to open competi-
tion to secure reasonableness in rates. 1t
is true that the common law requires that
rates shall be reasonable. So does the in
terstate commerce law. But this is mere
declaration, and there is no adequate remedy
to enforce the barren right Congress has
not given the interstate co~merce commits
sion power over rates. 1t has relied upon
competition to keep them fair. Whether
congress will see fit to take the railroads
out of the operation of the natural laws of
trade and for independent competition sub
|stitute governmental regulation, remains to
be seen."