New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-10-23

.he traffic Inconvenience Of New Eng
and.
What Mr. Swacker said was the most
;r.rortant matter brought out yester-
day. as showing the methods exercised
b, Inc system in stranglinR compeu-
zion. was long document known as
The Sound Lines Agreement. 20 called by
Mr. Ncnen In his Identification OF H.
made In 1850. renewed in 1887, said by
Mr. Melen 20 be in effect as late y
1897. and promised BY the prosecution
10 be shown in effect much later. TINS,
Mr. Swacker said, was document
never before made public.
Il was an agreement between the
Boston & Providence, the New YORK
Providence & Boston railroads, the
Providence and Stonington Steamship
Company. the Old Colony Railroad and
old Colony Steamboat companies, the
New York & New England Railroad and
the Metropolitan Steamship and New
Haven Railroad companies. This agree
ment hxcd freight and passenger rates,
provided for the termination as soon as
legally possible OF outstanding con-
tracts and the regulation Of traffic con-
ditions for business between Boston.
Providence and New York.
Court Admits Agreement.
Freight carried through Boston or
New York 20 some other destination
was exempted from the operation OF
the agreement Special prohibition was
placed on indirect cut rates through
rebates, commissions or otherwise, ex-
cept as allowed by the joint consent OF
officials Of the companies party 10 the
covenant. Charles Francis Adams, IT"
was named as the arbiter OF complaints
by the parties, his judgment being
made final and binding on all.
And IN case any agent or employe
Of the party or parties complained Of
the document read, shall be found 70
have violated any provision Of this
agreement, he shall be promptly dis
charged from his position and SHAH
not be reinstated without the consent
Of a majority OF the parties hereto;
provided that the party whose agent or
employe is thus found may have the
option, instead Of discharging him, 10
pay the other parties hereto the sum
Of SO 900 for each violation aforesaid
By questions from Mr.. LindHbury Il
was brought out from Mr.. Mellen thst
Mr.. Adams was the first chairman Of
the Mh~-EGNAN Gus ANnl4i UdI 1bNhitAtF
sion and that the agreement had been
on file with the Interstate Commerce
Commission al Washington eve~ since
il was formed. Mr. Lindabury said.
twenty-eight years ago, and that II had
never been objected 10. Mr.. Linda
bury thereupon moved that il be
stricken out as Illegal evidence.
Mr.. Swacker argued that his purpose
was 70 show that under the operation
of this agreement the Shore Lines lost
their competitive policy against the
New Haven. The court admitted the
agreement in evidence.
OF almost equal Importance, accord
ing 10 Mr.. Swacker's analysis OF the
days testimony, was his showing OF
the direct way in which the New Haven
went about crushing competition. A
resolution Of the directors in 1891 was
put in evidence. 1t was, in part:
$4,000 Lost on Deal.
"If a new line is opened by way Of
Wilson's Point and the New York &
New England Railroad to points east
and north of Willimantic for business
competition with that OF this company.
this company will feel at liberty to
withdraw all Joint business with the
New York & New England road so far
as it lawfully may, and, in regard TO
the Boston & Maine and Northampton
lines, that II arrangements are made
for through business between New
York and points knowns as &C. points
on the Boston & Maine Railroad. the
contract shall provide for a termina-
ton thereof upon a notification Of not
less than three months
When asked by Mr.. Swacker TO indi-
cate all the routes covered by this reso-
luton and to point out on the map the
&C" points. Mr.. Mellen did so quickly
and without hesitation, in full detail.
After this there was placed In evil
dence, identified By Mr.. Mellen, series
Of reports made 10 him. as second vice
president Of the New Haven. showing