Legal Document

365 U.S. 127 81 Supreme Court Reporter 523 5 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 464 EASTERN RAILROAD PRESIDENTS CONFERENCE et al., Petitioners,v.NOERR MOTOR FREIGHT, INC., al. Number 50. Argued Dec. 12, 1960. Decided Feb. 20, 1961. Rehearing Denied April 3, See 875, 899. Mr. Philip Price, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioners. Harold E. Kohn, respondents. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 American railroads have always largely depended upon income from long-distance transportation heavy freight economic survival. During early years their existence, they had virtually no competition in this aspect business, but, as 1920's, growth trucking industry country began to bring about changes situation. For truckers found, just learned earlier, that a very profitable part business was long hauling freight. As became more and powerful, between it increasingly intense until, during period following conclusion World War II, at least railroads, if not both competing groups, came view struggle one life or death method transportation. The present litigation is an outgrowth struggle. 2 case commenced by complaint filed District Pennsylvania on behalf 41 truck operators trade association, Motor Truck Association. This complaint, which named defendants 24 Eastern association presidents those known Railroad Presidents Conference, public relations firm, Carl Byoir & Associates, Inc., charged conspired restrain monopolize violation §§ 11 22 Sherman Act. gist conspiracy alleged engaged conduct publicity campaign against designed foster adoption retention laws law enforcement practices destructive create atmosphere distaste among general public, impair relationships existing customers. so conducted described 'vicious, corrupt, fraudulent,' first, sole motivation behind desire injure eventually destroy them competitors and, secondly, utilized so-called third-party technique, is, matter circulated made appear spontaneously expressed views independent persons civic groups when, fact, prepared produced paid railroads.3 then went supplement these less allegations with specific charges particular instances attempted influence legislation means campaign. One several such succeeded persuading Governor veto measure 'Fair Bill,'4 would permitted carry heavier loads over roads. 3 prayer treble damages under § 4 Clayton Act5 injunction restraining further acts pursuance conspiracy. Insofar concerned stipulation entered only suffered individual loss resulted Bill' Pennsylvania, accordingly claim limited amount based profits result plus expenses incurred truckers' purpose combatting railroads' injunctive relief much broader, however, asking be restrained disseminating any disparaging information without disclosing railroad participation, attempting exert pressure legislature through medium front organizations, paying private organizations propagate arguments doing 'any other act thing * objects purposes' In answer admitted passage state relating weight limits tax rates trucks, encourage rigid penalizing trucks overweight traffic violations, but denied motivated either competitor interfere Rather, insisted, furtherance rights 'to inform legislatures states truth regard enormous damage done roads especially repeated deliberate violations limiting speed big failure pay fair share cost constructing, maintaining repairing roads, driving hazards *.' Such campaign, maintained, did constitute Act, presumably because Act could properly interpreted apply restraints monopolizations efforts individuals laws.6 Subsequently, broadened scope filing counterclaim themselves violated conspiring trucks. were same original including malicious law, hostile counterclaim, like continuance allegedly unlawful practices. reply each addition, interposed number affirmative defenses, none are relevant here. 6 posture, trial. After hearings, trial court judgment, extensive findings fact conclusions while not.7 reaching conclusion, expressly disclaimed condemn illegal mere new law. Instead, rested its judgment findings, insofar actually directed lawmaking authorities, fraudulent—malicious competitors, fraudulent predicated deceiving authorities use technique;8 also important, overriding, destruction goodwill, customers, thus injured ways unrelated line theory resulting valid actionable awarded nominal truckers, holding recoverable due Bill.' did, award substantial well broad asked complaint.9 7 reached despite legislation, technique Resting directed, most part,10 trying get passed beneficial rather than harmful found purely defensive concluded differed competitor. Accordingly, held though technically restraint trade, within rule reason governs interpretation consequently dismissed counterclaim. 8 appealed Appeals Third Circuit, judge dissenting part, upheld every respect, stating amply support there sufficient evidence all findings.11 followed petition certiorari question correctness Because presents unusual application involves severe restrictions others seek defeat when deemed desirable, we granted petition.12 9 We accept, starting point our consideration case, basic construction adopted courts below—that can attempts laws. It has been recognized, since landmark decision Standard Oil Co., New Jersey versus States,13 forbids created, attempted, 'individuals combinations corporations.'14 where monopolization governmental action, opposed out.15 These decisions rest form government whether kind should pass, enforced, responsibility appropriate legislative executive branch itself does violate some provision Constitution. 10 think equally clear prohibit two associating together attempt persuade take action respect produce monopoly. Although associations perhaps, process expansive construction, brought proscription 'combination(s) trade,' bear little resemblance normally violative ordinarily characterized express implied agreement understanding participants will jointly give up freedom, help another away freedom devices price-fixing agreements, boycotts, market-division similar arrangements.16 essential dissimilarity agreements traditionally condemned even conclusive applicability warning treating defendants' amounted common-law restraint. And do conclusively settled, factor considered along difficulties presented influencing first place, substantially power actions operate trade. representative democracy this, branches people large extent, whole concept representation depends ability make wishes representatives. To hold retains capacity yet hold, time, cannot freely impute regulate, activity, political basis whatever history Act.17 Secondly, equal significance, raise important constitutional questions. right freedoms protected Bill Rights, cannot, course, lightly Congress intent invade freedoms. Indeed, imputation particularly unjustified countervailing considerations enumerated above. reasons, activities comprised solicitation called consider below correct that, notwithstanding principle, here presence additional factors out area principle controlling. 12 relied established finding Court, seeking business. But see how adequately supported record,18 transform otherwise lawful into All led us group applicable spite addition factor. representatives desires depend so. neither nor hope may advantage disadvantage competitors. recognized Rock Royal Co-op., said: 'If ulterior motives corporate aggrandizement stimulated activities, thereby rendered unlawful. If Order valid, effect cooperatives monopoly market *.'19 quite probably personal who provide governments must act. A disqualify taking position matters financially interested deprive valuable source importance them. reject toward obtaining legality affected anticompetitive had. 13 second justify technique. related proscriptions entirely opinions below, apparently involved unethical railroads. pointed above, aptly involving 'deception manufacture bogus sources reference, (and) distortion information,' giving propaganda party interest appearance being spontaneous declarations groups. certainly agree widespread practitioners art relations,20 falls far short ethical standards generally approved country. follow, constitutes sets code ethics all, condemns restraints, already out, clearly category activity. tailored world, arena. exercised extreme caution legislating problems reflected interpreting legislation.21 go naught extension regulate nature simply commercial impact involve termed unethical. 14 Moreover, extent disposition inconsistent alone apparent allowed. Since undisputed guilty technique,22 sense controlling appears primarily indication vicious truckers. purpose, come reliance lower misplaced was, concerned, legally irrelevant. 15 foregoing factors, relate methods 'more merely obtain legislation. hurt way possible secured legislation.' (Emphasis original.) Specifically, goodwill customers particularly, over-all competitive weakened, successful injury inflicted. render inapplicable principles announced stand close scrutiny. There directly anyone deal record, oral documentary, deals Circulars, speeches, newspaper articles, editorials, magazine memoranda documents discuss hazards, urge forced costs rebuilding compelled obey laws, placed carry. light intended mean sustained direct incidental hopeful might happen.23 Thus, issue courts' different discussed. inevitable, whenever publicity, infliction interests whom directed. seems inevitable conducting aware of, possibly pleased by, prospect injury. knowing renders tantamount outlawing campaigns. discussed reasons anything 16 situations ostensibly sham cover what nothing justified. No denies making genuine effort version facts set forth fully credited, highly successful. Under circumstances, conclude manner proscribed case. 17 rejecting grounds rejected distinguish so, restored true case—a 'no-holds-barred fight'24 industries control income.25 Inherent fights, commonplace halls bodies, possibility, many probability, made. instance, powers muster other. contest lines accepted system, except deliberately deceived officials. deception, reprehensible consequence concerned. That respective campaigns enforcement. acquiesced dismissal challenging Appeals' affirmance order certiorari, parts judgments liable follows said wrong. They reversed. 18 Reversed. 'Every contract, combination trust otherwise, conspiracy, commerce States, foreign nations, declared illegal: *' Code KF62 1, Annotated KF65 U5 1. person shall monopolize, combine conspire persons, misdemeanor 2, 2. discussion mechanics purposes underlying firms, Ross, Image Merchants, 118, 226—227 266—267. referred introduced Legislature May 1951, Senate bill 615. 'Any his property forbidden antitrust sue therefor district defendant resides agent, controversy, recover threefold him sustained, suit, reasonable attorney's fee.' 15, 15. contention complained constitutionally First Amendment barred prosecuting suit identical complaining pari delicto. proper find unnecessary defenses. merits controversy reported 155 F.Supp. 768. An dealing 166 163. reports earlier preliminary motions, D.C., 113 737; F.R.D. 189, 19 146. false content. dramatic fragment emphasis repetition distort falsehood.' page 814. anything, broader requested effectively enjoined used. pages 172—173. recognize occasion themselves. found: 'About middle decade (the 1940's) PMTA manual charging taxes compared wide distribution legislators, banks, security investment houses, etc.' lay 'the target strong convincing taxes,' necessary 'be likewise show fault truckers.' 803. 273 Federal Reporter, 2nd 218. Chief Judge Biggs dissented majority Court's he concurred 362 947, 80 862, 866. 221 51—62, 31 502, 512 516, 55 L.Ed. 619. Id., 57, 514. 307 533, 59 993, 83 1446; Parker Brown, 317 341, 63 307, 87 315. Apex Hosiery company Leader, 310 469, 491—493, 60 982, 990—992, 84 1311. supra, unanimous language warrant invalidation regulatory program holding, program's validity implemenation—a unlike reasoning stated succinctly Stone: 'Here command Commission committee California Prorate since, latter's words history, taken prohibition action. created machinery establishing prorate program. organization zone proposed producers, program, Commission, referendum state, acting adopts enforces penal sanctions, execution policy. prerequisite approval prescribed producers imposition minority force prohibits. exercises authority regulation prescribing conditions application.' U.S., 352, 314. study record reveals subsidiary conclusory damaging absence nonetheless accept for, view, regardless fact. 560, 1006. 20 field demonstrated firms interviewed before finally decided hire included outline submitted 778. 21 See, e.g., Harriss, 347 612, 74 808, 98 989. Cf. Rumely, 345 41, 73 543, 97 770. opinion: 'The discloses sides used, wanted use, fronts and/or technique.' 816. findings. establishes wrote contacts legislators bills increasing trucks; write Harrisburg trucker connections; intentionally refrain advising officials letters solicited; solicited statements news releases issued thereon.' 23 Here again, petitioners leveled vigorous attack court's attack, shippers quit Their theme unfair charge unfairly low prices, encouraged, discouraged, availed services. argument considerable appeal before, pass allowed not. borrow phrase Biggs. 25 commencement litigation, truck-weight become virtue Governor's approval. fight goes on.

Classification Label: 7