The Red Cloud chief., 1898-10-28
TRAFFIC POOLS VOID
NATIONAL sUPREMECO
SO RULES.
Tsunh Lines os the East Held 20 usvs
Formed . Combinstion IN Restraint Of
Trade and Commercs --Grsss Victor,
fes shippers.

states supreme court to-day decided
the Joint Traffic association case for
the United States and against the rail-
roads. Tho case Is considered one Of
the most important that has ever come
from tae supreme court, not only TO
the railroads, but to the general pub
lie and by the vast railroad properties
represented by the traffic association.
Tho association was formed on Novem-
Der 10, 1906. by eighty-one railroads
representing the great Eastern trunk
lines and their network OF branches.
The purpose of tho association, as
stated In the articles OF agreement
was ito establish and maintain rea-
sonable and just rates, fares and reg.
ulations on state and interstate traf.
fic." A similar association, on q
smaller scale, was formed among the
southwestern roads, known as the
Transmissouri Freight association.
These associations were soon at.
tackled in the courts upon the ground
that they wero In violation of the
Sherman antitrust law and also OF
the interstate commercs law. The
Transmissouri case first reached the
United States supreme court, where,
In notable opinion, the court held
that the association was illegal, being
In effect q combination in restraint OF
trade and commerce, and therefore
violative Of the antitrust law. This
opinion was by divided bench, the
division being very close. Chief Jus.
tice Fuller and Justices Harlan,
Brewer, Brown and Peckham holding
the traffic association illegal. while
Justices Field, Gray and Shiras fllcd a
dissenting opinion upholding the asso-
citation. Soon after this decision JUS
tice Field gave place to Justice Nc.
Kcnna.
Although the Missouri case was con-
sidcred somewhat Of n test ono, vet
the joint traffic association prepared to
make q stubborn contest In support OF
Its existence. The case against 1t was
begun on January z, 1896, in the United
States district court for tho Southern
district Of New York, the United
States being complainant and the at
torney general directing its course
Tho case went against the government :
In the lower courts, the circuit court
dismissing the bill and the court of
appeals affirming the dismissal The
government appealed to tho United
States supreme court. An exceptionally
brilliant array of counsel appeared
for the association and several rail-
roads, including ex-senator Edmunds,
James G. Carter and T.. j. Phelps. So
licitc~ General Richards filed the brief
for s.Ie government. The main con-
tention of the government was that
the traffic agreement was q combina-
tion to prevent competition. thus con-
stituting a contract in restraint of
trade or commerce. The answer of
the association maintained the legality
Of the agreement, upon the ground
that the vast needs of commerce re-
quire joint action and that such action
insures uniform and just rates and
prevents secret and unjust discrilnina-
tions.
Justice Peckham announced the de-
cision. He said that the court could
distinguish no difference between this
oho thob "a thO ChSC uc-
cided year ago, which was decided
against tho railroads He said the
only new point involved was us
to the constitutionality of the anti
trust act. The court had reached
the conclusion that as rail-
road corporations performed duties
Of q semi-public character, 1t was
within the constitutional power of
congress to regulate them as provided
by the antitrust act. The only ques.
tion, then, was as to the policy of
congress in adopting such measure,
and as to questions OF policy, tho
court, he said, had nothing to do.
The opinion, which was very brief,
was ooncurred in by Chief Justice
Fuller and Justice Harlan, Justice
Brewer, Justice Brown and Justice
Peckham. Three justices dissented-
Justice Gray, Justice shiras and JUS
tice White. Justice McKenna took
no part In the case, rs the prosecution
Of the Joint Traffic association was be.
gun while he was attorney general.