The citizen. (Honesdale, Pa.) 1908-1914, 1913-01-01
RAILROAD INDICTMENTS.

| hAlDttOAD lNDIClmENISs
The criminal proceedings which
have been instituted against the re-
spoDsible officials of the New York,
i New Haven and Hartford Railroad
and the Canadian Grand Trunk Rail-
way are in various respects excep-
tional and extraordinary.
They are so in the first place for
the reason that two of the defend
ants are British subjects, whose
domicile lies beyond the Federal jur-
isdiction. Charles S. Mellen, of the
New Haven road, and Edison j.
Chamberlain and Alfred w. Smith
ers, of the Grand Trunk, have been
indicted under the first clause of the
| Sherman Antitrust act, which
makes ii a misdemeanor, punishable
with fine or Imprisonment, or both,
to form combination in restraint
of trade, and as the conventional
crime thus created is presumably
not extraditable, the Canadian Of
ficials could hardly have been reach
/ ed had they chosen to stand upon
their rights and take full advantage
of their opportunities. 1t seems that
they are not intending to do so. Mr..
Chamberlin, president of the Grand
Trunk, has already pleaded not gull
ty to the indictment and has been
released on bail, while it is under
stood that Smithers, chairman Of the
Grand Trunk Board of Directors,
who lives in London, is intending to
come over to be tried Apparently
neither of these is suffering from a
| guilty conscience in the premises or
is seriously concerned over the out
come.
Another extraordinary feature of
the proceedings is the nature of the
charge which forms their motive. In
every other action that has been tax
en- under the antitrust law the NOV
ing cause has been of a positive or
affirmative kind. The indictment,
where the proceedings have been
taken in the criminal court, or the
/ bill of equity where the suit has
| been a civil one, has been founded
on the averment Of an undertaking
or agreement which has operated,
or would operate, or was meant to
operate, to restrain trade or to re-
strict existing facilities. In the pres
ent instance this is not the case. The
facts here are that the Grand Trunk
Railway Company had planned the
construction of certain lines in New
England which had they been built
and worked would have competed
with lines forming part of the New
Haven system. 1t also proposed to
establish a steamboat service be-
tween Providence and New York. 1t
| had actually begun work on this pro-
gram, but few months ago, to the
intense disappointment and indigna-
| ton of the community in interest,
the enterprise was abandoned, and it
presently tranSpired that the reason
for this abandonment was that traf-
tic arrangements had been made
with the New Haven road which ELI
minated the previously existing in
! centive.
1t will therefore be seen that the
issue raised is whether the Grand
Trunk Railway is withdrawing for a
! consideration from the purpose it
| had entertained committed an un-
lawful act and rendered itself amen
able to the clause of the Sherman
law under which it has been indict-
ed. 1t was under no obligation to
build the lines whose construction
it had begun, but the contention Bof
the prosecution is that, having be-
gun to build them, it could not le-
gally desist from their construction
in return for concessions made by
the company with whose lines they
would have been in competition. The
offer of such concession and the ac-
ceptance of them are alleged to have
| constituted such a conspiracy in re-
straint of trade as the law forbids,
and this in spite of the circum-
stance that the community affected
has not been prejudiced, that it is
as we'll off today as it was when the
Grand Trunk Railway formed and
started to execute its subsequently
abandoned design. No more can be
said than that it has been aisap-
pointed in not receiving a benefit it
had expected.
Under the conditions which have
been described it can be understood
why the government decided to in
stitute criminal rather than a civil
suit, for it is hard to imagine for
what relief a bill in equity could
have prayed or how a decree re-
sponsive to its terms could have
been framed. There is no existing
combination to be dissolved and no
process is imaginable by which the
Grand Trunk Railway could be COM
PEELED to execute it's original pur-
pose. Apart altogether from the
question of jurisdiction, it has not
yet been claimed that railroad COM
panies can be forced to build branch
lines if they prefer not to do so. The
prosecution which has been started
is not likely to amount to much
PhiladelDhia InOuirer