United States v. Freight Ass, TRANS-MISSOURI
Decision Date | 22 March 1897 |
Docket Number | TRANS-MISSOURI,No. 67,67 |
Citation | 166 U.S. 290,17 S.Ct. 540,41 L.Ed. 1007 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. FREIGHT ASS'N |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On the 2d of July, 1890, an act was passed by the congress of the United States, entitled 'An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.' 26 Stat. 209, c. 647; Supp. Rev. St. p. 726.
The act is given in full in the margin.1 On the 15th day of March, 1889, all but three of the defendants, the railway companies named in the bill, made and entered into an agreement by which they formed themselves into an association to be known at the 'Trans-Missouri Freight Association,' and they agreed to be governed by the provisions contained in the articles of agreement.
The memorandum of agreement entered into between the railway companies named therein stated, among other things, as follows:
'For the purpose of mutual protection by establishing and maintaining reasonable rates, rules, and regulations on all freight traffic, both through and local, the subscribers do hereby form an association to be known as the 'Trans-Missouri Freight Association,' and agree to be governed by the following provisions:
'The traffic to be included in the Trans-Missouri Freight Association shall be as follows:
'(1) All traffic competitive between any two or more members hereof, passing between points in the following described territory: Commencing at the Gulf of Mexico, on the 95th meridian; thence north, to the Red river; thence, via that river, to the eastern boundary line of the Indian Territory; thence north, by said boundary line and the eastern line of the state of Kansas, to the Missouri river, at Kansas City; thence, via the said Missouri river, to the point of intersection of that river with the eastern boundary of Montana; thence, via the said eastern boundary line, to the international line,—the foregoing to be known as the 'Missouri River Line'; thence, via said international line, to the Apcific coast; thence, via the Pacific coast, to the international line between the United States and Mexico; thence, via said international line, to the Gulf of Mexico; and thence, via said gulf, to the point of beginning,—including business between points on the boundary line as described.
'(2) All freight traffic originating within the territory as defined in the first section when destined to points east of the aforesaid Missouri River Line.'
Certain exceptions to the above article are then stated as to the particular business of several railway companies, which was to be regarded as outside and beyond the provisions of the agreement.
Article 2 provided for the election of a chairman of the organization, and for meetings at Kansas City, or otherwise, as might be provided for. By section 2 of that article, each road was to
Section 3 provides that § committee shall be appointed to establish rates, rules, and regulations on the traffic subject to this association, and to consider changes therein, and makes rules for meeting the competition of outside lines. Their conclusions, when unanimous, shall be made effective when they so order; but, if they differ, the question at issue shall be referred to the managers of the lines parties hereto; and, if they disagree, it shall be arbitrated in the manner provided in article 7.'
By section 4 it was provided that 'at least five days' written notice prior to each monthly meeting shall be given the chairman of any proposed reduction in rates or change in any rule or regulation governing freight traffic; eight days in so far as applicable to the traffic of Colorado or Utah.'
Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of article 2 read as follows:
Articles 3, 5, 6, and 7 contain appropriate provisions for the carrying out of the purposes of the agreement, but it is not necessary to here set them forth in detail.
Article 4 reads as follows:
'Any willful underbilling in weights, or billing of freight at wrong classification, shall be considered a violation of this agreement; and the rules and regulations of any weighing association or inspection bureau, as established by it or as enforced by its officers and agents, shall be considered binding under the provisions of this agreement, and any willful vioation of them shall be subject to the penalties provided herein.'
Article 8 provides that the agreement should take effect April 1, 1889, subject thereafter to 30 days' notice of a desire on the part of any line to withdraw from the same.
On the 6th of January, 1892, the United States, as complainant, filed in the circuit court, of the United States for the district of Kansas, through its United States attorney for that district, and under the direction of the attorney general of the United States, its bill of complaint against the Trans-Missouri Freight Association, named in the agreement above mentioned, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company, and some 17 other railroad companies, the officers of which had, it was alleged, signed the agreement above...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robinson v. Unemployment Sec. Bd. of Review
...172, 65 L.Ed. 349. For instance, those who did not speak may not have agreed with those who did. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U. S. 290, 318, 17 S.Ct. 540, 41 L.Ed. 1007. Substitute Senate bill 59, as amended by Senate amendment schedule "A," was eventually adopted by ......
-
California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist.
...sources of information from which to discover the meaning of the language of the statute. (United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 U.S. 290, 17 S.Ct. 540, 41 L.Ed. 1007; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U.S. 468, 12 S.Ct. 55, 35 L.Ed. 821.) And it still remains true t......
-
State v. Sears
... ... in the decisions in either of the states last above referred ... Two ... cases ... sanctioned by this court. Nash v. United States, 229 ... U.S. 373, 377, 33 S.Ct. 780, 57 ... Trans-Missouri ... Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290, 320, 17 S.Ct ... ...
-
United States v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.
...Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 50, 31 S.Ct. 502, 511, 55 L.Ed. 619 (1911); United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U.S. 290, 323-24, 17 S.Ct. 540, 552, 41 L.Ed. 1007 (1897). The legislators who enacted the Sherman Act voiced concerns beyond the effects of anticomp......
-
Kansas Supreme Court Declares 'Rule Of Reason' Inapplicable To Kansas Antitrust Law; Legislature May Have A Different Idea
...the early Sherman Act cases which held, or seem to hold, that "every" means "every". In United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n., 166 U.S. 290 (1897), the Supreme Court, for a 5-4 Court, determined that "every" meant that "every" trade restraint, without exception, was in violation of......
-
Regulation of and Monopolization in Telecom and Media Markets
...U.S. 231, 238 (1918); Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. United States, 226 U.S. 20, 49 (1912); United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass’n, 166 U.S. 290, 342 (1897)). 377. See, e.g. , Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., 748 F. Supp. 2d 323, 341 (D. Vt. 2010). 142 Telecom Antitrust Handbook d......
-
Cooperative Standard Setting
...87, 91 (2007) (“The history of antitrust policy suggests that it has been unreasonably hostile toward private standard setting.”). 33. 166 U.S. 290 (1897). 34. Id. at 341. 35. See Trans-Missouri Freight Ass’n v. United States, 58 F. 58, 79-80 (8th Cir. 1893). 36. See, e.g. , Catalano, Inc. ......
-
Table of cases
...249, 250 United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass’n, 166 U.S. 290 (1897) .................................................................................................... 56 United States v. Tucor International, 189 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 1999) ..................................................
-
Table of Cases
...308 United States v. Terminal R.R. Ass’n of St. Louis, 224 U.S. 383 (1912), 113, 146 United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass’n, 166 U.S. 290 (1897), 142 United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (1966), 345 United States v. VISA U.S.A., Inc., 344 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2003), ......