Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-05-17

4
judicial legislation wholly unjustifable
Large numbers do not agree that the
view of the law taken by defendants ii
sound or true in substance and Congress:
NAV. and very probably will share ii
that belief in passing the act. The pubIlC
policy of the government is to be found
in it's statutes: and when they have MOI
directly spoken, then in the decisions o.
the courts; and the constant practice oil
tho government officials; but when the
law-making power speaks upon partic
MAR subject over which it has constitu.
tional power to legslate, the public pol
ICY in such case is what the statute
enacts If the law prohibits any contract
or combination in restraint of trade OF
commerce contract or combination oil
trade in violation of such law is void
whatever may have been heretofore de
eided by the courts to have been the pub
lie policy of the country on the subject
The conclusion which we have drawn
from the examination above made into
the question is that the antitrust act
applies to railroads, and that it renders
Illegal"
'Of course if it applies to railroads, ii
APPLIES to any other combination
And that it renders illegal all
agreements which are in restraint of
trade or commerce, as We have de-
fined that expression. and the ques
ton then arises whether the agree
nlent before us is of that nature"
And they held that it was.
But the controversy did not end
there.
Two years later another case came
fron; the West, known as the joint
traffic case. decided in III u. S.
There the question was whether a
certain traffic agreement in that case
was in violation of the antitrust
law. And what counsel we're here
then to enlighten the court? Two of
the very same counsel that were at
the former hearing-J. C. Carter. with
able associates +. n. Phelps and
Iastly-for no doubt there was infinite
confidence in the ability of this new
lawyer brought in the case for the
purpose of putting in the hands of
this court the light of reason and to
make Them see what was the real
meaning OF the act-that counsel was
George F. Edmunas of Vermont.
Is there any doubt but that James
Carter, E. J. Phelps and George F.
Edmunds would have gone into every
nook and corner of the ease and
found out every argument or thought
that would benefit the court in it's
reaching a conclusion? 1t is quite
to recur to what the
court said about this attempt to have
il reconsider what it has deliberately
said was the meaning of the act of
Congress. Let me read little more:
Finally we are asked to reconsider
the question decided in the trans
Missouri case and to re-trace the
steps taken therein, because of the
plain error contained in that decision
and the widespread alarm with which
it Was received, and the serious con-
sequences which have resulted. or
NAV soon result from the law as in
terpreted in tina. case" And the
court says:
1.-THE oppinion in the trans-Missouri
case gives great force and stability to
the arguments against the decision H.
nally arrived at by the court.
THE court added that one of the
benefits that 1t had in that case was
the Illuminating and extraordinary
able dissenting opinion written in tho
former case as we'll as in that case by
our learned chief justice who is now
at the head of this court. They had the
benefit of his views.
"It was after a full discussion of the
questions involved and with knowl-
edge of the views entertained by the
minority, as expressed in the dissent
ing opinion that the majority of the
court came to the conclusion that it
did
"Soon after the decision, petition
for re-hearing of the case was made,
supported by printed argument in its
favor. and pressed with an earnestness
and vigor which was certainly COM
mensuratc with the importance of the
case.
This court with care and delibera-
ton and also with full appreciation
of their Importance. again considered
the questions involved in the former
decision. A majority of the court once
more arrived at the conclusion it had
first announced and accordingly it de-
MED the application.
Now. for the third time"-says the
court back in 1S97-"noW for the third
time the same arguments are employed
and the court is again asked TO recant
its former opinion and to decide the same
question in direct opposition to the con-
elusion arrived at in the trans Missouri
case. In fact SO close was the division
of this court when the matter was I'M
der Amusement, together with the views
of some of the judges in the lower courts.
that we were led to most careful scru-
tiny and examination of the arguments
advanced by both sides. And it was after
such an examination was made that the
court came to the conclusion it did. 1t
is not now alleged that the court, on the
former occasion, overlooked any argu-
ment for the respondents or mlsapplied
any controlling point. 1t is simply in
sisted that Notwithstanding the argu-
ments from the opposite view, the court
arrived an erroneous result which, for
reasons already stated ought to be re-
considered and reversed. AS we have
twice already deliberately and earnestly
considered the same arguments which
are now for a third time pressed upon
your attention, it would hardly be ex-