Brief for the United States (1914)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

PAI! I Mil. tcniiiniiiL!,' llic prcscul (•( mt i-( »\ ('i'sy we iiccd hut l)i*i('lly I'cstatc sonic (tf the roncliisioiis reached. The ."M't ;i|)|)li('s to interstate r;iilI'oads as cai'rici's ('niKhictiiiu' interstate coniineree, and one of the ])i'in('i|)al iiisti'unieiitalities thereof, (riiifcd Shifcs v. TransMissoiiri Frcifjhf Associal ion , liifi [ \ S., 290; United Sfafcs v. Joint Trafjic Association, .171 U. S., 505. ) The aet is intended to reach conihinations and c()ns])iraeies which restrain freedom of action in interstate trade and conunerce and undnly suppress or restrict tlie play of C()ni})etiti()n in tlie conduct thereof. {United States v. Joi)it Traffic Association, su pra.) In that case an asjreement between competing interstate railroads for the purpose of fixing and maintaining rates was condemned. " It is,'' said the court (p. 571), the combination of these large and powerful corporations, covering vast sections of territory and influencing trade throughout the whole extent thereof, and acting as one l)ody in all the matters over which the com})ination extends, that constitutes the alleged evil, and in regard to which, so far as the combination operates upon and restrains interstate commerce. Congress has power to legislate and to prohibit." In the Northern Securities Co. v. United States (193 U. S., 197), this court dealt with a combination differing in character from that considered in the Trans-Missonri and Joint Traffic Cases, and it was there held that the transfer to a holding company of