New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-12-24
NEW HAVEN INDICTMENTS.

The indictment Of Mr.. Mellen and
Mr.. Chamberlain, the presidents OF the
New Haven and Grand Trunk falI-
roads starts what will certainly be an
interesting proceeding. IL offers an
other chance to test the theory thaO
criminal prosecution is the most satlS-
factory method OF making the sherman
law effective against monopoly me
fact that the governments great VIC
tories against large combinations nave
beeu obtained In civil suits, while IT'S
criminal actions against them nave
been disappointing, has not lessehed the
demand for prosecutions. 1t has rather
stimulated the desire in many minus
for the punishment Of individuals re
Snonsible for transactions which III
civil cases are found TO violate the law
Though criminal prosecutions OF the
bathtub. beef and sugar combinations
failed. q new test of the theory That
teeth can be put in the law by entorc-
; ing the lesson that 'gsilt Is persohal
will now be made.
The government. we think. has taken
/ the wise course I'm thus putting the
makers of the New HaNen-Grahd
Trunk agreement square.y To tiiai.
There IS no need Of the series %
prolonged investigations 10y various
bodies. national and state, which mas
heen talked about The issue OF the
controversy is clear and the main facts
are not in dispute The Grand IruhS
started 10 build line 10 Providence
10 compete with the New Haven. IL
abandoned the enterprise a. The result
Of an agreement 10y which the TWO
railroads arranged TO use certain eA-
listing lines i'm common. Doubtless the
indicted officials will point 10 the terms
of their agreement which stated it to
be the purpose TO give the Grand
Trunk ian opportunity TO compete for
all business at all stations reached Dy
New England lines. and defend Their
course as a proper method OF giving
the public the benefit of two compet-
ing systems without large expenditure
for new construction paralleling lines
able 10 carry the traffic OF both. On
The other hand, it may be doubted II
any real competition could be secured
under such an arrangement. The pup
lie might have choice OF shipping
under a New Haven or Grand Trunk
bill bead, but any serious rivalry III
rates or character Of service would
Hardly be expected from common users
of the same tracks.
Indeed. the agreement hints as much
.sD its provision that the New England
Lines rates by other lines shall be
"such as to preserve the Grand Trunk :
existing situation in New England,
rapd that the Joint rates by the Grand
iyfTunls should always be such as 10 ELI
-nble the Grand Trunk 10 compete salts
factorily for business throughout the
Jerritory reached by the New England
taines. Such an arrangement would Sc
cure to the Grand Trunk its share OF
the through business as against other
connections Of the New Haven, with
ont the necessity of building its own
extensions. But it would not interfere
with the substantial monopoly of the
New Haven in New England. as the
projected line might have done
The agreement as published. in spite
ef its careful promises Of competition,
certainly conveys the impression OF
combination to avoid the necessity OF
Under the rule of rea'
con" the Supreme Court might find 1t
substantially interfered with competi-
lion. Whether a jury under the rules
of criminal law will be able 10 hnd
that it was Intentionally and wrong
fully directed TO that end and not to
the accomplishment of its ostenSible
purpose remains to be seen.