The record-union., 1899-12-31

Interstate Commerce Commission the
transcript of the evidence taken at a
hearing before the commission last
week in the matter OF the new freight
classification, with a view to action by
the Attorney General under the anti
trust law, if his judgment should war
rant the same.
In his letter to the commission, re-
ferring to the demand Of the shippers
that legal action against the railroads
be taken, the Attorney General says:
"a railroad company may raise it's
rates to an unreasonable point; it may
discriminate among it's shippers; it may
charge more for short than a long
haul, but none of these acts, however
unjust and wrongful, amounts to vio-
lation Of the antitrust law. To au-
thorize the Attorney General to direct
an injunction proceeding under this
law, it must be shown that there is a
contract, combination OF
conspiracy In restraint Of trade or COM
merce among the several States"
In the first place, there is no cop
tract combination or conspiracy shown.
There is consultation by representative
railroad men in committee respecting
suggested changes in classification.
There is subsequent independent action
by railroad companies in the adoption
of the new classification recommended
by the committee. The testimony
taken does not show that any railroad
acted under compulsion of a combina-
ton in adopting the official classifica-
ton. It must be conceded that a COM
mon classification by railroad compan-
les operating in the same territory is
desirable thing. VIII It be insisted
that railroads cannot consult respect
ing freight classification? Or because
one railroad company adopts certain
classification, another cannot? The
antitrust law says there must be a
contract, or combination, or conspiracy.
This must be shown. And it must be
shown to restrain individual action.
This is not shown in the testimony sub
mitted.
Moreover. there must not only be
a contract, combination or conspiracy,
but it must be in restraint of inter-
state commerce. As applied to car
riers. this means a combination to sup
press competition It Is only by sup
pressing competition and arbitrarily
fixing the rates that restraint can be
put upon interstate commerce. The
filing of an official classification does
not fix the rates. It places articles in
certain classes, but the rates for the
classes are determined by the railroad
companies outside the classification.
If a railroad company maintains the
existing rates, the change of an artl-
Gle from lower to higher class win
increase the rate, but from aught that
appears in this testimony, every rail-
road company using the classification is
at liberty at any time to change the
existing rates, upon giving the notice
required by the Interstate Commerce
Act. Moreover, each railroad company
is free to take any article out of the
existing classification by making COM
modify rate. In other words, no sup
preston Of competition, no arbitrary
fixing of rates, no restraint of interstate
commerce is shown.
1.-The Trans Missouri and Joint Traffic
Association cases afford no precedent
for the action required in this case.
Each of these associations was formed
by a contract, under which the COM
panies selected a. central authority to
fix and maintain rates. There was
an absolute suppression of competition.
The power of independent action was
destroyed. No company could change a
rate fixed by the managers of the as
ISOLATION without subJecting itself to a
penalty.
"If the testimony submitted showed a
combination AMONG the railroad COM
panies to restrain commerce among the
several States, it would not hesitate
to invoke the remedy provided by the
anti trust law, but to take such action
upon the faith of the facts submitted
would not only be futile, but absurd
If there be remedy for the complaining
shippers, it lies in an appeal to yo,if
commission under the Interstate COM
MERGE Law"