THE PRE SIDENT O F THE UNITED STATE S

’ ’ Th e Petitioner is The Receivers and Shippers Associa i tw o d tion of Cincinnati , Ohio, w th a membership of over hundre 2 40 fi s and forty ( ) individuals, rms and corporations, doing busines t an d its in the City of Cincinna i vicinity, and including also in membership the following business organizations of Cincinnati

The Chamber of Commerce . ’ The Business Men s Club . ’ The Manufacturers Club . A ’ en The Lumberm s Club . D ’ ’ The Pork Packers Slaughterers Association .

The Ci ncinnati Metal Trades Association . ’ The Carriage Makers Club . ’ The Live Stock Commission Merchants Association.

The Cincinnati Furniture Exchange .

The Cincinnati Produce Exchange .

Th e Cincinnati Paint Club . ’ The Pine Lumber Dealers Association . The Cincinn ati Branch — National League Commis sion Mer

chants . The Common Carriers especially complained of are

Railwav The Southern Company, a corporation organized fiun de1 c on the laws of Virginia , and the railroad corporations t trolled by the Southern Railway Company, and hereinaf er specif P i all 3 c y named . Th e a a n Atlantic Coast Line Comp ny, a corpor tion orga ized Q under the laws of Con necticut ; and the railroad corporations con by th e l trolled At antic Coast Line Company, and hereinafter c s ec i ficall m d g: Q p y na e . r H Complain t is also mad e against 2 1 The St . Louis San Francisco Railroad . The New Orleans Northeastern Railroad .

The Norfolk 85 Western Railway .

The Illinois Central Railroad .

The Seaboard Air Line Railroad .

The Central of Geo rgia Railroad . The grounds of complaint are T 1 . hat The Southern Railway Company is a combination in ’ restrai n t of m trade and co merce between the States, within the 9 1 . 2 1 8 0 meaning of Section of the Statute of July , , commonly

known as the Anti - Trust Act ; and is an attempt to monopolize

an d n n of a mo opoly of trade and commerce, within the meani g

Section 2 of said statute . 2 That the Atlantic Coast Line Company is a combination

s in re traint of trade and commerce between the States , within the

n 1 of 2 1 8 9 0 m meani g of Section of the Statute July , , com only kn own as the Anti - Trust Act ; and is an attempt to monopolize

m W of and a onopoly of trade and commerce, ithin the meaning

Section 2 of said statute .

3 . That The Southeastern Mississippi Valley Association is a

an d combination in restrain of trade commerce between the States,

i 1 of 2 1 8 9 0 within the meaning of Sect on of the Statute July , , commonly known as the Anti — Trust Act ; and is an attempt to l m th e monopo ize and a monopoly of trade and co merce, within

n i mea ing of Section 2 of sa d statute . T m 4 . hat The Southeastern Freight Associ ation is a c o

. m m ate bination in restraint of trade and co erce between the St s, 1 J 2 1 8 9 0 within the meaning of Section of the Statute of uly , , comm only known as the Anti - Trust Act ; and is an attempt to m th e monopolize and a monopoly of trade and co merce, within 2 meaning of Section of said statute . h 5 . T at the Joint Agreement between the Southeastern Mississippi Valley Association and the Southeastern Freight

Association is a contract in restraint of trade and commerce , resulting in a combination and conspiracy of the parties to and th e fi bene ciaries of such agreements, in restrain of trade and com m 1 - erce, within the meaning of Section of the Anti Trust law ; an d is an attempt to monopolize and a monopoly in restraint of trade and commerce within the m eaning of Section of 2 of said statute .

6 l st 2 d 1 9 0 —1 . That on December and , , in the City of New

- s York, at the Waldorf A toria Hotel, a meeting was held by the officials of the following named railroads The So uthern Railway Company and the following named

: Companies controlled by it, viz . i fi The Cincinnat , New Orleans and Texas Paci c Railway Com

a pany, The Al bama Great Southern Railway Company, and The

Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company .

i n The Atlantic Coast L e Company, and the following named

vi z . : Companies controlled by it,

The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, the Louisville and

Nashville Railroad Company,The Nashville Chattanooga and St .

a R Louis R ilway Company, The Atlanta and West Point ailroad

Company, The Western of Alabama Railroad Company, and The n Georgia Railroad Compa y .

The St . Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company, The New

R a m Orleans and Northeastern ailro d Co pany, The Norfolk and R Western Railway Company , The Illinois Central ailroad Com

- pany, The Central of Georgia Railway Company, and The Seaboard

, Air Line Railroad Company .

That at said meeting the above named Compa n ies combined an d conspired to make and publish simultaneously classified rates of frei ght and comm odity freight rates from Ohio and Mississippi Ri ver crossings t o various points in the Southeast ; particularly to points i n the State of Georgia — and conspired and agreed to p ublish simultaneously classified rates of freight and comm odity r freight rates from Baltimore, Philadelphia , New Yo k, Boston and interior Eastern points to various points in the Southeast ; parti e ularlv to points in the State of Georgia ( a more detailed statement i n regard to which will hereinafter be more specifically set forth ) . That the action of the above named roads is a combination and c on s i rarc i p y, resulting in contracts and agreements in restra nt of

i c 1 trade and commerce, within the mean ng of Se tion of the

2 1 8 9 0 - u Statute of July , , commonly known as the Anti Tr st act ; and i s an attempt to mon opolize and a monopoly of trade and commerce among the several States , within the meaning of 2 Section of said statute .

1 6 7 . That the combinations referred to in subdivisions to i - nclusive are not only violations of the Anti Trust law, but they seriously discriminate against the commercial interests of the Northern an d Western States in favor of the E astern States in their trade relations with the Southern States , have seriously dam aged the commercial interests of said States , and if permitted to

continue will even more seriously damage said interests . 4

THE U ER COM PANY HIST ORY OF S O TH N RAILWAY V , SHOWING THE LINE S O F RAILROAD OWNE D ED BY AND C ONTROLL IT .

o The following hist ry of the Southern Railway Company , showing its origi n and development into a colossal combination completely controlling the trade and commerce of a large portion ’ o f the Southern States , is taken in the main fr m Poor s Manual

- an c of Railroads, authority whose statements are accepted as corre t by all persons interested in railroad properties . The Southern Railway Company was ch artered by the State 9 2 0 1 8 4 18 1 8 94 . of Virginia on February , and organized June , It l o immediate y began acquiring c ntrol of railroads in the South, an d b 3 0 18 9 6 y June , , it owned and controlled the following rail road mileage I M LE S . i n . C. V a. v a V a. Washingto , D , to Richmond , Danville, ,

t C. and Charlot e, N . , to Atlanta , Ga . ( about)

vi a v n At Bristol , Tenn Knox ille and Chatta ooga to i . v a . to lanta , Ga thence Birmingham , Ala , Green

l s vi le , Mi s

Ga . Rome , , to Lauderdale, Miss

Ga. Ga. Atlanta , , to Brunswick, ( about )

. l Various other lines owned eased, or controlled

n all n Total le gth of li es Southern Railway System, June 3 0 1 8 9 6 , A more particular statemen t of the names of the railroads

an d acquired, the territory traversed by them , the means by which ’ t d n hey were acquire , will be fou d in Poor s Manual of Railroads 18 9 7 . 7 6 1 7 7 6 i for pages to nclusive . D urin g the fiscal vear of 1 8 9 7 this Company acquired by

, th e purchase lease or other arrangement , Georgia Midland Rail

a road Company, and the Str sburg and Harrisonburg Branch of the d a Virginia Mi land R ilway . 1 8 9 7 i In August, , the V rginia Midland Railway Company was

d a 18 9 8 purchase by the Southern Railway Comp ny, and in June , , e n t was m rged i to it as a par of its system .

1 8 9 8 n In June, , the K oxville , Cumberland Gap and Louisville a l R ilway Company was a so merged into the Southern Railway

Company . I 1 8 9 8 th e n ao n February, , Hartwell Railroad Compa y was

quired .

2 6 18 9 8 of On February , , the ownership The Memphis and

Charleston Railway Company was acquired . D fi 3 0 1 8 9 9 uring the scal year ending June , , the Company acqui red the following railroads

Th e Carolin a Cumberland Gap Railway Co .

The Richmond Mecklenburg Railroad ,

The Mobile Birmingham Railroad .

The South Carolina Georgia Railroad .

The Atlantic Yadkin Valley Railroad .

The Carolina Midland Rai lroad Co .

Th e Sevi ern Knoxville Railroad Co .

The Northern Alabam a Railroad Co . Th e Southern Railway Company and the Lo uisville and Nash vi lle Railroad Company also purchased for joint account the Birmi ngham Railroad property from Th e Tennessee Coal and Iron

o C mpany . fi 3 0 1 9 00 During the scal year ending June , , this Company

a an d cquired The Atlantic Danville Railroad Company, The North

i of a eastern Ra lroad Company Georgia . The Sumter and W teree

o . Railroad, and the L ckhart Railroad Company

l n e 1 9 00 E i Decemb r, , the control of The Louisville, vansv lle

. m and St Louis Consolidated Railroad Co pany w as acquired .

1 9 0 1 83 ad In April, , the control of The Mobile Ohio Railro

w as f 9 Company acquired by the purchase o 0 per cent . of its f capital stock and more than 7 0 per cent . o its general mortgage bonds .

1 9 0 1 of In , the Company purchased the majority the capital s S tock of the Augusta outhern Railroad .

n 3 0 1 9 02 During the year endi g June , , there were added to the lines operated by the Company tw o sections of The Ensley

Southern Railwa y, and the extension of the former Knoxville and

Augusta Railroad . 1 9 0 2 In July, , the Company purch ased the securities

l d n of The At anta , Val osta and Wester Railway Company, and Th e . 1 6 St Johns River Terminal Company ; and on October ,

1 9 02 a n , the greater part of The Atlant , Valdosta and Wester Railway was conveyed by deed to The Georgia Southern and Florida {ailw a y Company . The H i Southern Railway Company and The Cincinnati , am l C ton and Dayton Railway ompany, jointly control The Cincinnati , 6

an d fi o f New Orleans Texas Paci c Railway Company, Lessees The Cinci n nati Southern Railway ; and the President of The Southern

o Railway Comp any is als President of The Cincinnati , New

Orleans and Texas Pacific Ra ilway Company . In 1 9 0 3 The Southern Railway Company an d The Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company purchased for joint account a

t Th o majority of the s ock of e Chicago, Indianapolis and L uisville

Mlon on Ra ilway Company ( Route) . It is possible that a careful examination o f the railroads owned and controlled by The So uthern Railway Company will dis

o i a e h e th e close s me om ssions in the foregoing st tem nt, but if such

emi ssi on s foll ow i n statem en t case the will be supplied by the g _ ’ 3 0 19 0 3 n a up to June , , and accompanyi g map t ken from Poor s

19 04 of Manual of Railroads, , the lines of railroads owned or oper ated bv lease or other arrangement by The Southern Railway Com pan v Lines of Rai lroad Operated — Statement showing in detail th e mi leage of the lines o perated by the Southern Railway Company

e 3 0 l 9 03 Jun . s IN NE S N R C E E N S S . MA LI A D B A H . MIL "

V a . e Alexandria , , to Gre nsboro , N . C Neapoli s to West Point Va to C. Charlotte , N . , Augusta , Ga a l Columbi to Greenvil e, S . C

' . C. Salisbury, N , to Morristown, Tenn

Bristol to Chattanooga, Tenn

Stevenson Ala . , to Memphis , Tenn u to Al T scumbia Florence a .

Moscow to Somerville , Tenn . n e n Ooltewah Junctio , T n , to Brunswick ,

Austell , Ga to State Line , Miss 1 State Line,y Ala . , to Greenville, Miss TSton evi lle to i Percy, M ss l l tta Bena to Webb , Miss . l ta un G a. At an J ction , , to York, Ala m n . Alexandria to Blue o t , Va U i n on Street Branch , Alexandria , Va n s Manassas Ju ction to Harri onburg, Va o t . Calverton Warrenton , Va a i Fr nklin Junction to Pittsv lle , Va

Manchester Junction to Rocketts, Va l Bel e Isle Junction to Belle Isle , Va

Granite , Va to Westham Granite Q uarry . l C arksville, Va to Durham , N . C . O xford to Henderson , N . C . m C. . Po ona to Wilkesboro , N . n Ashville ( Murphy Ju ction ) to Murphy, N . C . a T Ch rlotte to aylorville, N . C

Hodges to Abbeville, S . C

Belton to Anderson, S . C t E fi ld o d e e . O Aiken g , S Em c E breeville Jun tion to mbreeville, Tenn o to R gersville Junction Rogersville, Tenn o Clint n to Harriman Junction, Tenn

Jc . to K . O . , Knoxville Cumberland Gap n Ten . Knoxville Belt Ore Bed Junction to Watts Mines Tenn i n o T . K xv lle to Welland, enn " ” Briceville Y to Panola , Tenn a Oliver Springs to Big Mount in, Tenn l a n . Cleve nd , Te n , to Cohutta, Ga

m Ga. North Ro e , , to Attalla Ala

Atlanta to Fort Valley . Ga . l Cochran to Hawkinsvi le, Ga

R a . . D J . u G ock c to T rtle iver Docks . Brunswick l to i G a. Vi la Rica , , M nes Howell to Belt Junction Ga

Marion Junction to Akron , Ala Wi ilton to Mobile Junction , Ala e Gurne J unction to Blocton, Ala En d e m Woodlawn to Belt Road , Bess er Ala n North Birmi gham to Coalburg, Ala . 9 D. Coalburg to Mines and , Ala ff Cardi to Brazil Mines , Ala ' c fi erson l u J to B ossb rg , Ala He e er Offerman to p Mines , Ala c Ameri a Junction to America , Ala to Oakman Coal Valley, Ala to t Patton Junction Pat on , Ala 3 Al . a Corona to No Mines , Al a. Littleton , , to Coal Mines Ala Castleman Junction to Castleman , n n Ala Spri g Garde . to Mines

Lulu to Athens , Ga Cave Springs to Lopez Ga u North Aug sta S . C Branch d E n Ar ella to Belle lle , Ala l n Seymour to Coa Mi es , Ala ’ I i n n c i r s V . a . Po nt , , to N C . R . R . Conn K v Louisville to Lexington , M ‘ Law ren c ebur g to Burgin , Ky M V ersailles n to Georgetow , Ky

' n E i Venice and Caro delet Belt, . St . Lou s Ill . . ll i un l Be ev lle J ction to Bel eville , Ill . . i l E . I l St . Lou s , to State Line , Ind s F . St . Loui . Madison and Granite City Branch E . L ui St . o s , Ill 8

fi to A State . Line, Ill , New lbany, Ind TTJas er E p to vansville, Ind i TRock ort p Junction to Rockport, Ind TT l Li n c o n . City to Cannelton, Ind

Total main lines an d branches a Less not operated , Anderson Br nch

Main line and branches operated

Con trolled b O wn ershi S ecuri ti s y p of e .

A — s . Lea ed miles )

MILES . mi Southern Railway, Carolina Division les)

Cay ce to Hardeeville, S . C

Perry to Sievern, S . C .

n C. a Charlesto , S . , to August , Ga

Branchville to Columbia , S . C

M . . C. . C. Kingsville, S , to arion , N ff Blacksburg to Ga ney, S . C .

Burton Branch , S . C ’

T i . . aylor s M ll Branch, S C

. C. p . . . Biltmore , N , to S artanburg Junct , S C

. C. . Spartanburg to Alston , S

u C. . J . Sumter unction to S mter, S Mobile and Birmin gham Railroad n i Marion Ju ction to Mob le , Ala Ri chmon d and Mecklenburg Railroad vi Keysville to Clarks lle, Georgia Midland Rai lay M c Don ou h g to Columbus, Ga

— B . Not leased miles) .

MILES . State University Railroad i U . n versity to Chapel Hill , N C North Carolin a Midland Railroad

- Mooresville to Winston Salem , N . C h h n R . Hig Point , Ra dleman Asheboro Sout ern R .

High Point to Ashboro , N . C Yadkin Railroad miles )

Salisburg to Norwood , N . C Un h ion Copper Mines Branc , N . C Elberton Air Line Railroad Toc E o cao Ga . . to lbert n , Knoxville an d Ohio Railroad miles ) e Knoxville to Jellic , Tenn b Coal Creek to Cam ria , Tenn Sievern and Knoxville Railroad

Batesburg to Sievern , S . 9

A tlantic and Yadkin R ailroad miles)

to . Sanford Mt . Airy . N C N to . Climax Ramseur, C

e to . Stok sdale Madison, N C

G to N. reensboro Proximity Mills, C

. to a r . Mt Airy Granite Q u r y, S C E nsley Southern Railroad miles)

E . to nsley, Ala , near Warrior River l o r A a . t Parrish, , Nea Little Warrior River

Total controlled

" ‘ l otal main line and branches l Tota . controlled

Tota l c overed by Southern Railway Securities .

i Leas ed L n es . E MIL S . N o rth Carolina Railro ad miles)

Goldsboro to Chalotte, N . C i to . C. . Carale gh Junction Caraleigh Mills, N A tlanta and Charlotte Ai r Line Railway to . C. Charlotte , N , Atlanta , Ga Franklin and Pittsylvan i a Railroad to o Pittsville R cky Mount , Va A tlantic and Danville Railroad miles ) Danville to West Norfolk ; V a l r James River Junction to C e em on t Wharf Va .

H i itchcock Junction to H tchcock Mills , Va f B a . V . Buf alo Junction to uffalo Lithia Springs , i to Shoulders H ll Shops , Va

V a. o . t . . . R R Virgilina , , Mines , N C . ( N . S C ) L ockhart Railroad

to . Lockhart Junction Lockhart, S C

Total leased

O erated Un der A r eem en t p g .

MILE S . R osw ell Railroad miles ) R Chamblee to oswell , Ga F a Morgan alls Br nch , Ga .

Tracka e Ri h ts g g . I M LES . Baltimore and Potomac Railroad

. C. to en d . Washington, D , South Long Bridge W ashin g ton Southern Railroad

South end Long Bridge to Alexandria , Va I O

Central of Georgia Railway miles ' Street to U Peters nion Depot, Atlanta , Ga

J to St. Central c . W . Broad , Savannah

us . E Aug ta Summerville R . R ntrance to Union

Ga . Depot, Augusta , Georgia Railroad miles ) E U ntrance to nion Depot, Aug usta , Ga E U tl ntrance to nion Depot , A anta , Ga Western and Atlantic Railroad

W . A . Crossing to Dalton , Ga . Alabama Great Southern Railroad miles) w to Woodla n Birmingham , Ala

Birmingham to Mobile Junction , Ala

York , Ala . , to Meridian , Miss .

to t. . . a S . Central Pass Sta Louis , Chattanooga Louisville and Nashvi lle Railroad miles ) E n U ntra ce to nion Depot , Birmingham , Ala

, i Al 81 . . U a . L . N Junct to n on Depot, Florence,

e . Cumberland Gap , T nn , to Middlesboro, Ky

Middlesb orough Belt and Bennetts Fork Branch .

m . . . Lipsco b St to Passenger Sta , Mobile, Ala Atlanti c Coast Line miles )

V a. : Pinners Point , , to Tarboro , N C

rb o-r Ta o to Selma N . C

. C. . Hardeeville , S , to Central Junct , Ga

— to U . Ga. Four Mile Crossing Brunswick nion Sta , i G a . Central Junction, , to Jacksonv lle , Fla E n t U a rance to nion Station, Sav nnah, Ga

n an d . o Nashville , Chatta ooga St L uis Railway n S Chattanooga , Ten to tevenson, Ala Jacksonville Terminal Company

E c . ntrance to Depot , Ja ksonville , Fla J s T Com an v St . ohn River erminal p

Near Grand River Crossing, Fla . , to Bay Street n i l Freight Depot . Jackso v l e, Fla Savannah Union Station Company

i . . U p . Cent . Junet , Ga to n on De ot Savannah , Ga i St . Lou s Terminal Railroad Association E ou l ll At ast St . L is , E ast St . Louis and Cairo Railroad

a n E St. . . Rel y Junctio to Broadway , . Louis , Ill s i l n i Jack onv le a d St . Lou s Railway i I l l . Through Central a , . Balti m ore and Oh io Sou th w estern Railroad

At New Albany , Ind Chica g o and Alton Railway

i Ill . E t . Near as St Lou s , Illinois Cen tral Railroad mile)

E . . St. . leventh to Seventh St Sta , Louisville, Ky

E n n . ntrance to Calhoun St . Sta . , Memphis , Te I I

Kentucky and Indiana Bridge and Railroad m . )

New Albany, Ind . , to Louisville, Ky

Total trackage " o The mileage of the Charlotte and Rapidan Railroad , fr m

V a . e Charlotteville to Orange , , miles, is includ d in this u h r length , altho g that line as yet has not become formally me ged with th e Southern Railway .

TTh ese lines constitute the Southern Railway in Mississippi .

Southern Railway in Kentucky . Tl Southern Railway in Indiana .

EC PI T ON R A TULA I .

MILE S .

Lines owned miles ) . Main Lines i a l n T s In Virg nia , North C ro i a , South Carolina , enne see

m a . Alaba Mississippi , Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois : Branches and Spurs In District of Columbia , r C i Virginia , No th Carolina , South arolina , Georg a n ee a m Ten ess , Al ba a , Kentucky , Indiana and Illinois o ( b. ) Pr prietary railroads ( a ) Leased railroads a ( d . ) Operated : Roswell R ilroad ( e Trackage rights

Total length of lines operated by Southern Rail w a C m 3 0 1 9 0 3 y o pany, June , In addition to the above the Southern Railway Company con trols the following railroads , which are operated independently LES MI . Aug usta Southern Railroad

Augusta to Tennille, Ga Blue Ridge Railroad n d— A Ow e nderson to Walhalla . S . C Leased — South ern Railway— Anderson to Belton

Danvi lle an d Western Railway Ow — V a. u . ned Stokesville , to St art , Va l eN. Leaksville Junction to Leaksvil , C . Trackage Ri ght— Southern Railway Danville to

Stokesland , Va .

Total Operated Hartwell Railroad Hartwell to Bo wersville Ga Northern Alabama Railw ay ff to She ield Parrish , Ala . r to Rive ton Riverton Junction , Ala Various branches to mines I 2

e S t. Johns River T rmi nal Company

Jacksonville to Grand Crossing, Fl Alabama Great Southern Ra ilway C ompany h Wauhatc ie, Tenn . , to Meridian, Miss t a — Al Proprie ary Ro d Gadsden to Attalla a . Lines used under trackage contracts Leased R oad— Belt Railway of Chattanooga : In t and around Chat anooga , Tenn .

t o f all e 3 0 Total leng h lines operat d June , 1 9 03

MILES . Mobile and Ohio Railroad C ompany i — o to K . . Main L ne M bile, Ala . , Columbus, y E — to E Cairo xtension South Columbus , Ky . , ast o K Cair , y — r Columbus Branch A tesia , Miss to Columbus

Miss . S v — s to a tark ille Branch Artesia , Mis , St rkville,

Miss . A — t ee . o berdeen Branch Muldon, Miss Aberd n,

Miss . — s to Montgomery Division Columbus, Mis , Mont r gome y, Ala .

— . to Warrior Branch Tuscaloosa, Ala , Warrior Coal Fields — E Al to a. Blocton Branch line , Cahaba Coal Fields

to . . Mobile and Pritchards Bayou la Batre, Ala to m Bay Shore Railway, Delchamps Alaba a Port ,

Ala .

— o . R . Leased Line St. L uis 85 Cairo R ; Cairo

M Ba . Deduct obile v Shore Ry . not operated)

n a 3 0 1 9 03 Le gth of lines oper ted , June ,

The Southern Railway Company first became a c ombination railroads leadi n g into th e Southeastern States from Virginia

a co m gateways and South Atl ntic ports, and then enlarged the

or e of or bination by the purchase of stocks , securities , l ase other arra n gements with railro ads from Ohio and Mississippi River gate ways and Gulf ports into the common territory reached from the

an d Virginia gateways South Atlantic ports .

The foregoing statement relating to the Southern Railway Company makes clear the following facts :

CHARLESTO N Mt . S a g "

SOUTHERN RAILWAY S YS TE M

1 9 0 4

Southern Railway Owned or Leased

m Operated separately — Majority Stock Owned

m O h lin s in whi ch Sou h n R . Co. is in s d t er e t er y _ tere te

Connecti ons

Trackag e Ri g hts

1 4

1 3 - Law 18 9 0 E By Sections and of the Anti Trust of , very i n contract, combination the form of trust or otherwise, or con

s i rac d p y, in restraint of tra e or commerce among the several states, ” o to 2 or with foreign nati ns is declared be illegal ; by Section , of " the same act it is made illegal for any person or persons to m e n o oli z e or p or attempt to monopolize, or combine conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of the trade or ” commerce among the several states or with foreign nations ; and " ‘ ’ ‘ ’ 8 w -n by Section , of said Act , the ord perso or persons wherever used in this act shall be deemed to i nclude corporations and asso c i ati on s existing under or authorized by the laws of either th e

U a an y th e e nited States . the l ws of of Territori s , the laws of any ” state , or the laws of any foreign country .

t . . U In the Merger case ( Northern Securi ies Co vs nited States, 1 9 3 14 1 9 04 I . CE R N U . S . S decided March , , Mr JU T HA LA ,

C U -s speaking for the Supreme ourt of the nited State , took occa s u th e ion to summarize all previo s decisions under statute, and to s b tate the rules of law esta lished by them . This summary is as follows ( page 3 2 9 )

" The first c ase in this court arising under the Anti - Trust Act

‘ Un i te tate E n o h ext K i h t . 1 T n d S s . . 6 0 C 1 5 . . . e . U was v g , S

n i t t Tr n s - M i ou i Fr ei h t A so case was that of U ed S ta es v . a s s r g s

ei ti on 1 6 6 2 9 0 n i t t t . U . S e S a es a . U ed , . That was follow d by v

i n t r s o T ss oc i tio 1 1 . . 5 0 ki n ni t d t te J a c A a n 7 U 5 H o . U e S a s ffi , S , p v , i t 0 d 5 8 n ers o te 1 . 6 4 A . 7 A n . Un ted S a s 7 1 U . d U . d S , v , S , y

to i t e o i t t 2 1 1 n M on s P e l Un ted a es 1 7 5 U . . a n e ( 6 S C . v . S d p , S , t u : 3 e C o o r 1 9 . 3 m a a e L w 8 . s ( C . U g v . y, S . To the e y be add d 6 6 w al Pe r r e o t R i l 6 1 . 4 t r h er a wa 1 . a sall . G a N n U v y, S , hich ,

n - a though not arising u der the Anti Trust Act, involved an gree ment under which th e Great Northern and North ern Pacific Rail w ay Companies should be consolidated and by w hich competition t t 0 e s I e . E b n w a e n Un i ed S ta s . etw en those compa ies s to c a e . v

Kn i th e a t h t ( it Ga. g , it was held that g reement or arrangemen there involved h ad reference only to the m an ufac tur e or p roduc

tion h n . of sugar by t ose e gaged in the alleged combination , but if

h ad n it directly embraced interstate or i ternational commerce, it w ould then have been covered by the Anti - Tru st Act and would

T an - M i ouri Fr ei h t have been illegal ; In Uni ted S tates v . r s ss g

A s s oci ati on n w , that an agreeme t bet een certain railroad com

n d n m u pa ics provi ing for establishi g and maintaining, for their t o n e s an d s ual protection reas abl rate . rules regulations in re pect

ff h u an d a - b y w of freight tra ic , t ro g h loc l , and hich free competi n of tion among those compa ies was restricted, was, by reason

" - Un i ted . n such restrictio , illegal under the Anti Trust Act ; in

‘ t J oi n t Tra i c A ss oci ati on S ta es . v fi , that an arrangement between certain railroad companies i n reference to railroad traffic among w to the states , by hich the railroads involved were not subject competition among them selves was also forbidden by the Act ; in

i n i t t t An ers on n i ted tates S a es d . U S H o k n s . U ed p v and v , that the act embraced only agreements that had direct connection with i nterstate commerce and th at such commerce comprehended inter

e an course for all the purposes of trad , in y and all its forms , i n i o cluding the transportat n , purchase, sale and exchange of com m odi ti es : th e between citizens of different states , and power to r egulate it embraced all the instrumentalities by which such com

o t o n i ted merce is conducted in A ddys t n Pip e ( 6 S eel C . v . U

S tates m of , all the embers of the court concurring, that the act Congress made illegal an agreement between certain private com panic s or corporati ons engaged i n different states in the manu

t n facture, sale and transporta ion of iro pipe, whereby competi

i m w as - t on a ong them avoided, was covered by the Anti Trust Act ;

n d i n M o t ' r f c a n a ue . Lou o g v y, all the members the ourt again n e co curring, that a combination created by an agreem nt between

a an d dealers e certain private manuf cturers . in til s , grates and

n t f h ma els, in dif erent States , whereby they controlled or soug t d i e w as . to control the pr ce of such articles in thos states, condemne

I rs N r h i P a l . r t o t ern R lw a . n e a l G ea a by the act of Congress v y, h i h . n t e w ch as already stated , i volved the consolidation of Great fi Northern and Northern Paci c Railway Companies, the court said : The consolidation of these two great corporations w i ll una v oidably result in giving to the defendant ( the Great North ern ) a m onopoly of all traffic in the northern half of th e State o f Min neseta as well as of all trans — continental traffic north of the line of th e Union Paci fic against which public regulations will be but

Th e a 1 8 74 a feeble protection . acts of the Minnesot Legislature of and 1 8 8 1 un doubte dly refl ected the gen eral sentiment of the pub h lic , that t eir security is in competition .

We w ill not incumber this op inion by extended extracts from i ffi the former opin ons of the court . It is su cient to say that from the deci sions i n the above cases certain propositions are plainly

i : deducible and embrace the present case . Th ese propos tions are

That alth ough the act of Congress known as the Anti — Trust Act has no reference to th e m ere manufacture or production of

m th e i t articles or co modities within limits of the several states , 1 6

to n does embrace and declare be illegal every contract, combinatio

or r of wh o conspiracy, in whateve form; whatever nature, and

or s ever may be parties to it, which directly necessarily operate i n r es trai n t of trade or commerce am on g th e s everal S tates or

i i on w i th for e g n n at s . Th at the act is not limited to restraints of interstate and international trade or commerce that are unreasonable in their

all r es trai n ts nature, but embraces direct imposed by any combi

or or . nation, conspiracy monopoly upon such trade commerce ‘ That railroad carriers engaged in interstate or international trade or c omm erce ' are embraced by the act ;

That combinations even among p ri vate manufacturers or dealers whereby i n ters tate or i n tern ati onal c omm erc e is restrained are equally embraced by the act ; That Congress has the power to establish rules by which i n ters tat an d i n tern ati on al e commerce shall be governed, and , by

- T the Anti rust Act, has prescribed the rule of free competition among those engaged in such commerce ;

That every combination or conspiracy which would exti n guish competition between otherwise competing railroads engaged

i n ters tate trade or c omm erc e i n th at w a in , and which would y

su ch or m 1s restrain trade com erce, made illegal by the act ; That the natural effect of competition is to increase com m an d m ff erce, an agree ent whose direct e ect is to prevent this play of competition restrains instead of promotes trade an d com merce ;

‘ to i n That vit ate a combinatio , such as the act of Congress

n ot condemns, it need be shown that the combination, in fact, results or will result in a total suppression of trade or in a com

lete n to n ec es p monopoly, but it is o ly essential show that by its sary operation it tends to restrain interstate or international trade or commerce or tends to create a monopoly in such trade or com m erce and to deprive the public of the advantages that flow from free competition ;

That the co n stit utional guarantee of liberty of contract does n ot prevent Congress from prescribing the rule of free competi tion for those en gaged in i n ters tate an d i n ter n ati on al commerce ; and , That under its power to regulate commerce among the sev

to eral States and with foreign nations, Congress has authority n e act the statute in question . I 7

one i h re No , we assume, w ll deny t at these propositions we e distinctly announced in the former decisions of this court . Th y t c an n ot be i gnored or their effect avoided by the intimation tha

r i c t a es the court i ndulged in obi te d a. What was said in those c s ” was withing the limits of the issues made by the parti es.

h or th ern S ecuri ti es 0 0 s T e N . The case of the Un i ted S tates v . was brought to invalidate and restrain a combi nati on having for its purpose the consolidation or m erger of the Great Northern and o i i i rt Northern Pacific Railway C mpanies own ng l nes wh ch , in pa , were parallel and c ompeting . This merger was attempted by the organizati on of a corpora

t . ion in New Jersey, with power " To or an d to acquire by purchase, subscription otherwise, hold as investment any bonds or other securities or evidences of

or of d or s b indebtedness, any shares capital stock create is ued y an or or i n s y other corporation corporations, association associat o , of of or of a o o r the State New Jersey, any other st te, territ ry country . Th e Supreme Court of the United States held that the i nh 1bi tion of the Anti - Trust law against contracts or combination s in

of u or to its the form tr st otherwise restrain interstate trade, and i nhibition against attempts to monopolize such trade or commerce required that the court should look b eyond the mere form of a

to its a w m tran sac transaction subst nce , and that hatever for the t to or ion might take, if its effect were restrain interstate trade

m a n o com erce, such transaction was condemned by the act ; and th t State therefore could grant authority to any corporation to acquire control of any of the railroads of the country when such control had a tendency to restrain i nterstate trade or commerce . Wheth er the facts have an y beari ng on the questi on of th e of th e Co i s illegality Southern Railway mpany combination, it nevertheless true ( 1 ) that the company was n ot organized until

-

1- 8 94 of r 2 , four years after the passage the Anti T ust Law, and ( ) that every step taken by it in its combination was taken after th e

of f passage that law and with full knowledge o its inhibitions . Had this com pany organized as did the Northern Securities Company and taken over the different roads n ow owned and con

n o u o trolled by it, there could be dispute that s ch a combinati n f f h e would be in viol ation o the law . Is there any dif erence in t contemplation of the law because the company which has taken over the railroads is itself a railroad c ompan y v i n stead of a hold " t of o an d ing company If the subs ance of these acts c mbination , 1 8

n ot m to e the ere form they are made assume, is r garded, and if the purpose of the law and the results which it seeks to prevent

are r 111 borne in mind, it is impossible to diffe entiate principle the c ombination effected by th e Northern Securities case and that by

th e Southern Railway Company . " The law forbids every combination in the form of trust or " ” t e f o h erwi s in restraint o trade . The word otherwise was to undoubtedly inserted in the law by Congress , lest an attempt specifically enumerate all combinations in restraint of trade migh t be found to be uns uc cessful in failing to specify some form of

c no t ombination which Congress had foreseen, but which the abil f ity and ingenuity o lawyers might invent . In the third syllabus o f the Northern Securities case it i s declared that " The Anti - Trust Act embraces and declared to be illegal every

c i ontract , combinat on or conspiracy, in whatever form, or of what

e or ver nature, or whoever may be parties to it, which directly n ecessarily operates in restraint of trade or commerce am ong the ” several states or w ith foreign nations . Again in the syllabus of the same case it is held that " To act vitiate a combination, such as the of Congress con

d em n s , it need not be shown that such combination, in fact,

u or res lts , will result, in a total suppression of trade or in a com

lete n p monopoly, but it is o ly essential to show that by its necessary operation it tends to restrain interstate and international trade and

o r e m commerce, tends to creat a onopoly in such trade or com merce and to deprive the public of the advantages that flow from free competition .

th e In his argument in Northern Securities case, Attorney General Knox said : " The Anti - Trust Act was purposely framed in broad and gen e n ral lang uage in order to defeat subterfuges desig ed to evade it . It is framed in sweeping and comprehensive language which i n c ludes l every combination, regard ess of its form or structure, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with

fi m on o oli z foreign nations , and every person, natural or arti cial , p ing, attempting to monopolize or combining with any other per son ” to monopolize any part of such trade or commerce . ( North

. . Un ern Securities Co v ited States, " It is not essential to show that the person or persons charged with m on op o ilzi n g or combinin g have actually raised prices or n suppressed competitio , or restrained or monopolized trade or com

w n d n a merce in order to bring them ithin the co em tion of th e act . It is enough that the necessary effect of the combination or m on op oly is to give them the power to do those things . The decisive t n ot e exer question is whe her the power exists, whether it has b en

Tr n s - M i ss ouri J o in t Tra i c Pearsall an d A dd s ton i sed . a c In the , g , y

Cas es su ra m d , p , this court held that it was im aterial that tra e or commerce had not actually been restrained — that it made no differ

h ad e ence, even, that rates and prices been lower d, it being enough to bring the combination within the condemnation of the act that it had the p ow er to restrain trade or commerce . The very existence of the p ower, under these rulings, constitutes a restraint . ( North

. U . S . ern Securities Co v . ,

th e By the express language of act, too , a combination need not affect all of the trade or commerce in a certain territory to fall " h aw ffi f within the inhibition of t e l . It is su cient if it af ects any part of the trade or commerce among the several States or with ” m to foreig n nations, and the Supre e Court has given this lan u guage the meaning which, pon its face, it clearly has .

In the Northern Securities case Mr . Justice HOLMES sa 1 d ( page 40 2 ) " Again the statute is of a very sweeping and general charac ‘ ’ or n ter . It hits every contract combi ation of the p rohibited sort , ‘ ’ a g reat or sm ll , and every person who shall monopolize or attempt ‘ ’ to n monopolize, in the se se of the act , any part of the trade or m com erce among the Several States . And on page 4 0 7 h e " ‘ declares that Size has nothing to do with the matter . A m on Op ‘ ’ ” e l e a v of any part of comm rce among the States is unl wful . If the decision in the Northern S ecurities case goes no further than to establish the principle that a holding company can not combine competing roads an d gives permis sion to a railroad com pany in place of a holding comp any to combine in itself as many

fit ec e roads as it sees , then all the labor taken to s ure the d cision in that case the elaborate arguments of counsel and the extended

Opinions of the court w ere concerned only with a matter of form . The decision w ould have no substantial or practical effect ; and notwithstanding the decision in that and oth er cases under the

T a e t th e Anti rust Law , one r ilroad company in tim may come in o

possession and control , in some form or another, of many or all of a d U the r ilroa s in the nited States . The fact that the Southern Railw ay Company is a state corpo ti ra on is immaterial . In th e syllabus of the Northern Securities case ( page 1 9 9 ) i t w as h eld th at : 2 0

or N0 State can, by merely creating a corporation, in any so as to e other mode, project its authority into other States, pr vent Congress from exerting the power it possesses under the Con stitu t e or so to e t tion over interstate and in ernational comm rce, as ex mp its corporati on engaged in interstate commerce from obedience to any rule lawfully established by Con gress for such comm erce ; nor can any State g ive a corpo ration created under its laws authority to restrain interstate or international commerce against the will e of the nation as lawfully exp ressed by Cong ress . Ev ry corpora tion created by a State is necessarily subject to the supreme law of ” the land .

In his argument in the Northern Securities case, Attorney General Knox said ( page " Congress has the power to legislate upon the subject of c on soli dati on s of railroad corporations when the consolidations form interstate line s ; in the absence of legislation by Congress the power

to s exists in the States legislate upon the subject, but in the pre ence of legislation by Congress the power of the States over the subject ”

. on a e 19 is excluded ( Noyes Intercorpor te Relations, S ction ,

L oui svi lle ( 6 N as h vi ll t k 1 6 e . K en uc 1 U . . citing v y, , S In the course of his argument in the same case ( page Attorney General Knox also sa1 d " Ownership of a majority of its stock constitutes th e control of a corporation when the inq uiry is whether a combination or m on Oply has been formed to stifle competition between two or ”

a . In er or . on t c . more rival and competing railro ds Noyes p Rel , 2 8 4 ’ . Co . . 1 . . . . . 5 0 Co . Section ; Farmers L T v N Y C R R . ,

. . 41 0 424 v . 3 o . 1 0 N Y , ; People Chicago and Gas Trust C , Illi 2 6 8 2 9 1 on 5 nois, , ; Greenhood Public Policy, ; Richardson v . Cran 4 8 . 3 3 . 4 Co . . 3 5 6 a . 6 6 dall ; N Y ; Salt v Guthrie, Ohio St t ; Mil

. Y . . . E . W . 64 H . 9 . . 2 bank v N , L , ow ( N Y ) ; Pearsall v . Great 1 6 1 U . . 646 6 7 1 m C M o . o . . Northern Railway, S , ; Pull an . v Pac

. Co . 1 15 U . . 5 8 7 . R . . Co , . . 7 Atl . R S ; Pa R v Commonwealth, 3 6 8 3 . 1 7 . Rep , ,

In the course of his argument ( page 3 09 ) he also said " Th e t o It ( Nor hern Securities C . ) consti tutes a trust in l another light a so . As the courts throughout the country held i ‘ ’ w th practical unanimity that the class of trusts just described l is i legal, a second class was invented of corporations that have

acquired control of other corporations by purchasing their stock . This organization is of th e same general character as the preced ing, but the form is changed in order to escape the force of th e

2 2

or e and controls . ( if there may be any such instances, th y are

n l urch ased a ffi c exceptio a ) . It has p su cient amount of the sto k of the corporations owning such roads to control them by electing

fi a the directors and of cers of the s me, and by such control main taining . the separate corporate identities of the corporations, it has

of the power to evade the provisions the Interstate Commerce Law , and thus to restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of

— the Anti Trust Law . A brief reference to certain sections of the Interstate Com merce Law and the construction put. upon them by the United

States courts will make apparen t the existence of this po wer . Section 4 of the Interstate Commerce Law is as follows

" h t n l T a it shall be u awful for any common carrier, subject

h e to the provisions of this act, to c arge or receive any great r com pen sati on i n the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or m of like kind of property, under substantially si ilar circumstances an d th e conditions, for a shorter than for a longer distance over a th h s me line in e same direction , the s orter being included within the longer distance ; but this shall not be construed as authorizing

n m th e to a y com on carrier , within terms of this act , charge and receive as great compen sation for a shorter as for a longer distance ; a provided, however, that upon application to the Commission p

th e n n pointed under provisio s of this Act, such commo carrier may, m in special cases, after investigation by the Com ission , be author i z ed to n t charge less for longer tha for shorter dis ances, for the transpo rtation of passengers or property ; an d the Commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which said designated common carried may be relieved from the Operation of this section ” of this act . 5 2 i . In Ch cago Northwestern Railway Company v Osborne,

9 1 2 : Fed . Rep . , the facts and the decision were as follows Th e Chi cago Northwestern Railway Company owned and o r perated a railroad from Missouri Valley, a town on the weste n I II . border of Iowa , to Chicago, E a The Fremont , lkhorn Missouri Valley R ilroad Company

d a owned a railroa running east and west through Nebr ska , and connecting with the Chicago Northwestern Rai lway Company at Missouri Valley m E l The Fre ont , lkhorn Missouri Val ey Railroad Company

n n be was an i depende t corporation , but a majority of its stock th e longed to Chicago Northwestern Railway Company, and in w av this it was controlled by it . It was held by the Circuit Co urt of Appeals for the Eighth 8 th h th e e ( ) Circuit, t at when two conn cting companies united in a a joint tariff, they formed for the connected roads practically r new and independent line, so far as continuous transportation ove l them was concerned , and that, therefore, the long and short hau clause of th e Interstate Commerce Law would be applicable to such transportation ; but that so far as local tariff on its own line w as

n concerned, each road retai ed its indep endence and identity, and neither road was compelled to adjust its own local tariff to suit th e

to m ff t . other, nor compelled ake a joint tari with the o her s The same pri n ciple w as declared in Tozer v . United State , 9 1 s 5 2 Fed . . 7 a Rep , case decided by the same court , both opinion r W R U a s M . E E being announced by Justice BR , of the nited St te

Supreme Court . ‘In the Osborne case it is said Neither company i s bound to a djust its ow n local tariff to It n or m a . suit the other, compellable to ake joint tariff with it may insist upon charging its local rates for all transportation over ” i ts line . And f urther on this language is used " 0 m th e, N power exists at com on law , and none is given by act to court or com mission to compel connecting companies to d e contract with each other, to aban on full control of their separat ” r or to i n f . oads , unite a joint tarif

ee m S U . . 5 3 2 2 9 Co also S . v Mellen , Fed . Rep . ; Interstate ' 9 2 5 6 . . . . T. . . o . 5 v C. C merce Commission , N O . P Ry , Fed Rep

9 . . 8 . o Co . Allen v Lewis v Oregon Railr ad Navigation , Fed 2 1 Rep . .

s In view of these decision , it is apparent how a combination of such as the Southern Railway Company is , in the operation th e roads controlled by it by the ownership of the stock or securities

its of such roads, when such roads merely continue or intercept

n n e i li e, and are not parallel or connecti g roads , may evade the pr v 4 sions of Section of the Interstate Commerce Law .

The Southern Railway Compa n y controls these roads as c om "

letel a to at p y as if it had a deed for the roads , and yet it is ble tre d s them as separate roa s , establishing different and separate rate

not fic over them , and compelled to make any joint traf arrange

n ment for through tra sportation over them . Such a combination is clearly one which falls within the spirit of th e - aw n the inhibitions created by Anti Trust L , and is an evasio h law w ich the will not permit . 2 4

But whatever the method by which a combination o f railroads i s

eff o f s or s for ected, whether by purchase tock, by taking deed the

t u or roads, and whether the roads are parallel, compe ing, continuo s i n e i of th e t rcepting, nevertheless, such a combination is in v olation

S e a - c h rm n Anti Trust Act, if it gives such ombination the power,

as of S w a to t n in the case the outhern Rail y Company, directly res rai in terstate trade and commerce into a common territory ( Southern) i n favor of on e section of territory ( Eastern ) as against another

of section territory ( Northern and Western) . I o of t may be suggested , h wever, that the construction the Anti Tru i e to st Law, urged in th s p tition, logically leads the conclusion th at private individuals are prevented from purchasing the control

l or as u a con ing stock in competing continuous roads, and s ch e u a u e m w it i s awn l sion is m nifestly unso nd, the pr mise fro hich dr i s also unsound .

The answer to this suggestion is twofold : 1 ) that the conclu s ion referred to does n ot follow from the assumed premise that a railroad corporation is forbidden by the Anti - Trust Law to eff ect such a combination as the Southern Railway Company has effected ; 2 ) that even if such a conclusion does follow, it has not yet been h S a of i eld by the upreme Court that combination ndividuals can ,

of by securing control different railroads, restrain interstate trade an d commerce .

a fi of sw As be ring upon the rst branch this an er, what was said b y the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr . Justice Brown , in th e of 46 6 1 . 6 . 1 U . S case Pearsall v Great Northern Railway, , , , is pertinent : " Doubtless these stockh olders could lawfully acquire by indi v m or of idual purchases, the ajority, even the whole of the stock th e organized company, and thus ultimately obtain its control ; but the companies would on the whole remain separate corpora t o n o i l i ns, with interests but such in common . This, though poss b e, w a ould not be altogether feasible, and would require consider ble time for f n . ew its accomplishment In a years the two compa ies, b s i y ales of capital stock so acquired would become d ssevered , and th e interests of the stockholders of each company become antag i i ” on st c .

In the Northern Securities case ( page Mr . Justice Brewer recognizes the distinction between an individual or another c i n H orporation acquiring stock any corporation . e says : " fi law f A corporation, while by ction of recognized or some s u purpo es as a person, and for p rposes of jurisdiction as a citizen , 2 5

. i s n ot endowed with th e inalienable rights of. a natural person It

' i s an artifici al for t person, created and existing only the convenien t a of i t r nsaction busi ness . In this case was a mere instrumentality by which separate railroad properties were combined under on e c on i f t rol . That combinati on is as direct a restra nt o trade by destroy ing competition as the appointment of a committee to regulate r f n ot i n c on si st ates . The prohibition o such a combination is at all ” e nt with the right of an individual to purchase stock .

It may be urged that the Southern Rai lway Comp -any combina t h as m h an d n ow too a ion already acco plis ed its purpose , it is l te f or the Government to seek relief against the combination . This

( contention was made in the Northern Securities case , and disposed ( of bv the Court i n the following manner

" It is here suggested that the alleged combination h as aecom

li sh ed of a p its object before the commencement this suit, in th t the

S s n ecuritie Compa y had then organized , and had actually received a m ajori ty of th e sto ck of the tw o constituent companies ; th ere

or e it n o ff i n ow d to f , is argued, e ect ve relief can be grante the i G . overnment This same v ew was pressed upon the Circuit Court, a n d n e was rejected . It was completely a swered by that Court wh n ‘ : it it said Concerning the second contention, we observe that

not to of i would be a novel , say absurd , interpretation the Ant

' Trust Act to hold that after an unlawful combination is formed

i n o to ui e and has acqu red the power which it had right acq r . " to i s namely, restrain commerce by suppressing competition, and p roceeding to use i t and execute the purpos e f or which the combina t d of w it ion was forme , it must be left in possession the po er that h as to v acquired , with full freedom exercise it . Ob iously the act, w h l d wi e n o u . r en fair y interpret , ll bear such constr ction Cong ess aimed to destrov th e power to place an y dire ct restraint on inter s tate trade and commerce, when by any combination or conspiracy, fi u formed by either natural or arti cial persons , s ch a power had b een acquired ; and the Government may intervene and demand relief as well after the combination is fully organized as while it is i n of process formation . In this instance, as we have already said , the Securities Com pany made itself a party to a combination in r estraint of interstate trade and commerce th at antedated its organ i z ation i o f , as soon as it came nto existence, doing so , course, under ’ th e of wh o direction the very individuals promoted it .

h i - W le Section 7 of the Anti Trust Law gives to every person i n jured by its vi olation a right of actio n at law to recover threefold t h e h im damages sustained by , yet this remedy, even if applicable 2 6

ffi here, is entirely inadequate to meet the di culties presented by the present situation . " m lultitudi n ou s Such actions at law would be , and measured only by the number of plainti ffs which would be many hundreds, multiplied by the number of ship ments which would be many

Ea thousands . ch of said shipments would involve only a small m a ount of money, and the necessity for a prompt recovery therefor,

a m a together with the divisio n of s id clai s among m ny plaintiffs, and the fact that they would be divided between a number of de

of a fendants, would prevent the joinder only very few of such

so o claims in one action . To proceed would be tedi us and o b of expensive, and w uld defeat the o ject in view making the par e ties whole on account of their damages and losses, and in vi w of the fact that the injuries complained of are continuing, the parties injured would be compelled repeatedly to bring new actions an d would become involved in constant litigation, which parties will ” n ot consent to undertake . The parties represented by this petitioner would willingly proceed in E quity to enjoin the continuan ce of the combination s

- - m Law . co plained of, if the Anti Trust empowered them to do so but the United States Supreme Court has held that private parties

E — can not proceed in quity under the Anti Trust Law, but that such an action must be brought by the United States under the direction of the Attorney General .

a s The syllabus in the c se of Minnesota vs . Northern Securitie 1 94 48 U . S : Company, , is as follows

" i - 2 18 9 0 w as to The ntention of the Anti Trust Act of July , , limit di rect proceedin gs in Equity to p revent and restrain such violations of th e Anti - Tru st Act as cause injury to the general m l th e public , or to all alike, ere y from suppression of competition i n trade and commerce among the several States and with foreign n U natio s to those instituted in the name of. the nited States under 4 th e D Section of Act by istrict Attorneys of the United States . n acting under the direction of the Attorney General , thus securi g th e i n enforcement of the act, so far as such direct proceedings Equity are concerned ac ordi n g to some uniform plan operative ” h u n t ro ghout the entire cou try . In view of the foregoing statemen t of facts and the law a m th e i l Attor pplicable to the , Petit oner respectful y asks that the n ey General of th e United States be directed by you to institute th e proper pro c eedings in the United States Courts against the South ern Railway Company . 2 7

I E P ATLANT C COAST LIN C OM ANY .

iTh i s w as 2 9 18 8 9 un s Company organized on May , , der the law of Connecticut . It owns or controls a connected system of railroad

i Ga . V a . . extend ng from Richmond, , and Norfolk, Va to Atlanta, ,

l . A a. . C G . Montgomery, , Ponta orda, Fla ; reaching Wilmington, N , C . . u harleston, Port Royal and Columbia , S C Aug sta , Macon,

n m Ga. Brunswick and Savan ah , ; Jacksonville, Port Ta pa and Fort

. c Myers, Fla , and numerous other points in the South Atlanti c States . The following statement shows the mileage of the Atlanti

on 1 1 9 0 41 Coast Line System January ,

MILES .

Atlantic Coast Line Company ( exclusive of C .

W . . C trackage )

5 8 . . . C . W C Railway Northwestern Railroad of South Carolina ( ex

e . lusive of A . C L . R . R . trackage )

f o . Total length railroads controlled by A . C 1 9 . 0 1 4 . L Company, January , C b The Atlantic Coast Railroad ompany, owned and controlled y

c C C a the Atlanti oast Line omp ny, is a consolidation of railroads , m 1 1 9 00 a ade effective May , , of the Atlantic Coast Line R ilroad Compa n y of Virginia ; th e Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company of South Carolina ; the Norfolk and Carolina Ra ilroad Comp any, n the Wilming ton Weldon Railroad Company, and the Southeaster

Railroad Company of North Carolina . The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company of South Carolin a 1 6 1 8 9 8 was a combination organized July , , of the Wilmington,

T A Columbia S. ugusta the Northeastern ; the Florence ; the Cheraw

85 . Darlington, and the Manchester Augusta Railroad Companies The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company of Virginia was a ff 1 1 8 9 8 th e an d combination e ected on November , , of Petersburg the Richmond Petersburg Railroad Com panies .

The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Comp any , as above described on 1 3 1 9 02 May , , was combined with the Savannah , Florida

n m y Western Railway Company ( Pla t Syste ) , which latter Compan w as o f itself a combination railroads . 1 1 90 2 On November , , the control of the Louisville Nash ville Railroad Compa n y was acq uired by the Atlantic Coast Line th e Railroad Company through purchase of of stock , bei n g a majority of the capital stock of the Louisville Nashville

R Th n o ailroad Company . e latter Compa y owns and contr ls

d i n i e miles of railroa s, itself be g a comb nation of a large numb r of railroads . 2 8

The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and the Lo uisvi lle 65 Nashville Railroad Company are joint lessees of the Georgia Ra il r a Com oad Company, and joint owners of the Atlant Belt Line

A i a n on e- p any . The tlant c Coast Line R ilroad Compa y owns sixth

- on e- interest in the Richmond Washing ton Company, and third Th i nterest in the Chesapeake Steamship Company . e Richmond Washington Company is a c orporation formed f or the purpose of o th e ai of perating r lroad connecting the south end the Long Bridge,

at . . Washington D C with Richmond , Va The Chesapeake Steam ship Compan y operates steamship lines between Baltimore an d

'

Norfolk and between Baltim ore and York River in Virginia . A m ore detailed account of the railroads owned and controlled b y the Atlanti c Coast Line Railroad Company and the Louisville Nash ville Railroad Company will appear from the following s t 3 0 1 9 0 3 m ta ement up to June , , and accompanying maps taken fro ’ l 1 904 Poor s Manual of Rai roads ,

A TLANTI C COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY . i 3 0 9 3 1 0 . M leage operated June ,

Li n e wn ed s O . E MIL S . - I n Virginia , North Carolina , South Carolina, Georgia , Florida and Alabama 3 Leased Li n e s .

South Carolina Pacific Railway Central Railroad of South Carolina Wi lmi ngton Street Railway Winston Bon e Valley Railroad

Trac ka Ri h t g e g s . Seaboard Air Li n e Railway Ch arleston Western Carolina Railway Wilmington Railway Bridge Savannah Union Station Com pany Jaekson vi lle Termin al Company Belt Line Railroad

3 9 3 0 1 0 . Total length of lines operated June ,

Li n e er d Op ated . Statement showing in detail the m ileage operated by the A l n m 3 0 1 9 03 : t a tic Coast Line Railroad Co pany, June ,

n d . t m Richmo . Va to Por Ta pa , Fla ’ l ( V a. R Pinner s Point Norfo k ) , , to ocky Mount ,

. C. N , and branches

to Clapton James River, Va to Acree Dunlop, Va

Western Branch, Petersburg, Va

P to . ender Kingston, N C

o to . C. . Tarboro Juncti n Plymouth , N

to n . C. . Parmelee Junction Washingto , N

to H . Rocky Mount . Spring ope , N C

a to . Contentne Wilmington , N C

to Smithfield . Goldsboro Junction , N C

to . Warsaw Clinton , N C

to C. . Wilmington Newbern, N . , and Branches

to . . Yadkin Junction ( Wilmington ) Sanford, N C

. to . . C Parkton, N , South Carolina State Line Wilmi ngton to Wilmingt on Railway Bridge Comp any ( Hilton) Wilmi ngt on Railway Bridge Company ( Na

a to Dee . v ssa ) Pee , S C E t . . o lrod , N C . Conway , S . C F . t . . . C . o C lorence, S Wadesboro , N , and branch l to Ha i . rtsv le, S C t . C. o . Sumter, S , Gibson , N C to Florence Columbia , S . C

to . Latta Clio , S C

to . Sumter Robbins , S C E to . lliott Lucknow , S C ll to Pre n a s . Creston g , S C E to utawville Ferguson , S . C Ashley Ri ver Railroad Branch

a to . R . John s Isl nd Ashley iver, S C to C Banh s Ravenel Yonges Island, S . , and r c e h rh E rd . a t . Green Pond to , S C

esu Ga. J p , , to Montgomery, Al

to Ga. . Waycross Folkston ,

Ga. to Albany, , Monticello, Fla t ‘ Ga. o Climax , , Chattahoochee , Fla Abbeville Junction to Abbeville Ala E Ala to E a . lba Junction lb , to n Sprague Junction Luver e , Ala to Brunswick Albany Junction, Ga

u Ga. to . D pont Junction, , Punta Gorda , Fla n to Lake City Ju ction Lake City, Fla Hi g h Springs to Gainesville Fla to Juliette Ocala , Fla to Gulf Junction Homosassa , Fla r to Ba tow Bartow Junction , Fla DeLan d to DeLan d Junction , Fla

to E . . Sanford Lake ustis , Fla

to . Sanford Lake Charm , Fla o e d t . an to Astor L esburg , Fla Fort Mason Fl a Lane Park,

'

m . Kissim ee to Apopka , Fla 3 0

Thonoto sassa Junction to Thonotosassa Fla. _

Palatka to Gainesville and to Brookville, Fla . , and Branches ‘ O kah um a p to Yalaka, Fla Enterprise to Enterprise Junction Ga

Sanford to St . Petersburg, Fla arc oossee Kissimmee to N , Fla Etc Lines to Factories, Mills ,

Leased Lines miles) . Central Railroad of South Carolina

Lanes to Sumter, S . C South Carolina Pacific Railway n n N . C . Lines to Be ettsville, S . C Wilming ton Street Railway

In Wilmington, N . C Winston Bone Valley Railroad la n s F . a d Winston to Tiger Bay, , Branche R m Trackage ights iles ) . Seaboard Air Line Railway r Ga ysburg to Weldon, N . C t Archer to Morris on , Fla Wilmi ngton Rai lway B‘ridge N Hilton to Navassa , . C Charleston Western Carolina Railway

Robbins , S . C . to Augusta , Ga Savannah Un ion Station Compan y U i o to Telfair Junction to nion Stat n , and thence a point near Union Juncti on Ja cksonville Terminal Company n i n h Ju ct on with li e to Savannah to depot , t ence l a . to junction with ine to Port T mpa , Fla Belt Line Railw ay In l\l on t om er g y , Ala

Total mileage operated . U E LE O LO ISVILL NA SHVIL RAILR OAD C MPANY .

d n 9 3 i n l 3 0 1 0 . Mileage operate Ju e . L nes ow ed ( tota 3 m iles) .

M ILFS . Main Stem i Ix l y . Lou sville , to Nashvil e Tenn Bardstown and Springfield Branch Bardstou n u S 1 i n fi eld J nction to p g , Ky Kn oxville Branch

n n un Ky . n n Leba o J ction , , to Jellico , Te ll 1lton Branch

K y . Woodbine to Wilton . J d ellico . Bir seye 85 Northern R ailroad K v l n Halsey, . , to Je lico , Te n . 3 1

Cumberland Valley Branch t K . Corbin , y , to Nor on, Va Cumberland River 85 Tennessee Railroad

Wasi ota . to Chenoa , Ky Middlesborough Railroad

K to M n es . Middlesborough, y , Coal a , Tenn

81. e t Louisville , Cincinnati L xing on Railway

Louisville to Newport , Ky . Louisville Railway Transfer

E u . ast Louisville to So th Louisville, Ky Lexington Branch La e t Grange to L xing on, Ky Shelby Cut - O ff i Shelbyville to Chr stianburg, Ky ’ 81 a Louisville , Harrod s Creek Westport R ilroad

Louisville to Prospect, Ky Shelby Railroad e Anchorage to Shelbyvill , Ky o fi Shelbyville, Bl om eld Ohio Railroad m Shelbyville to Bloo field, Ky Kentucky Central Railway

Covington to Livingston , Ky Maysville 81 Lexington Railroad

n : . North Divisio Maysville to Paris , Ky : n i South Division Paris Ju ct on to Lexington,

Rich mond Branch Richmond to Rowland Owensboro 85 Nashville Railroad

Owensboro to Adairville, Ky Mud River Bra n ch

Penrod to Mud River Mines, Ky Brought forward Memphis Line

M . emphis Junction to Memphis , Tenn Paducah and Memph is Division : Memph is T n en . , to Paducah Ky Clarksville 85 Princeton Branch i . n la v Clarksv lle , Tenn , to Princeto , Clarksville Mineral Branch

Hematite to Pond , Ky l u Van Leer to Cumber and F rnace, Tenn . 81 Southeast St . Louis Railway E a . E st St . Louis, Ill , to vansville, Ind . Sh a11 n eetow n Branch : Shawnee Junction to

Shawneetown, Ill . . ’ ‘ ’ ' ’ O Fallon Branch : O Fallon Junction to O Fal

lon , Ill . Henderson Bridge and Conn ecting Track E 1 an sville Henderson Nash ville Railroad

E.n sfield n n Ju ctio to Henderson , Ky . 3 2

Madisonville Branch lVl di son vill to la e Providence, Ky 81 fi Nashville, Florence Shef eld Railway m to fi Ala Colu bia Shef eld , West Point Branch T Iron City to Pinkney, enn Napier Branch to Summertown Napier, Tenn Long Branch i to T. 81 A . Junct on Long Branch Sheffield 81 Tuscumbia Railroad

h ffield to . , e S Tuscumbia , Ala r New and Old Decatur Belt 81 Terminal Rail oad . Stouts Moun tain Railroad to t . S S M . Junction touts Moun ain, Ala Birmingham Mineral Railroad ll M a e a . g to Brickyard Y, m Alice

m . to to Alice Mines , ; Alice Fossil

. to e Mines, m Graces Bessem r, m l to Miusc oda m . ; S oss , . ; Blue Creek

to m . Junction Blocton Junction, ; d to e Yolan e Brookwood , m . Chamble

to . to a Goethite , m Bessemer Oneont ,

m . S s to Crom ton s ; Village pring p , ’

. t m Gurley to Worthing on s Q uarries,

. to m . a m Palmers Bradford , ; Oneont to m m . to Cha pion, Boyles Trussville, m . to s m . ; Gate City Grace , ; l to m . He ena Gurnee Junction, ; t Leo usta m o . Readers g , ; Oneonta and

to m . Attalla Junction Altoona , ; North

n to m . Alabama Ju ction Searles , ; Val

. m . ley Creek to Virginia, Ala , ; Gurley n e — t . m . T . Ju ction to L high, Ala , o al Alabama Min eral Railroad to Ala Attalla Calera , u : to C Col mbiana Branch Shelby olumbiana ,

Lumberton Branch : Gilmore Switch to Lum n Ala berto , ’ : O Con n or Skews Branch Junction to Skews,

Oth er Branches Montgomery 81 Prattville Railroad

Prattville Junction to Prattville, Ala Mobile 85 Montgomery Railroad o M ntgomery to Mobile, A la Alabam a 8 ' Florida Railroad n Georgia a , Ala to Graceville, Fla South ern Alabam a Rai lroad lm a E s m u n Se to ca bia J nctio , Ala . , and Branch . 3 3

Camden Branch : Nadawah to Camden, Ala . 85 Bi rmingham, Selma New Orleans Railway

o Ala . Selma t Myrtlewood, Pensacola Railroad

Flom ati on . to a , Ala , Pens cola , Fla Pensacola Atlantic Railroad to J Pensacola River unction, Fla New Orleans 81: Mobi le Railroad e to Mobil New Orleans, La Ponchartr ain Railroad to Ponchartrain Junction Milneburg, La

e e or erated Un der A reem en ts ( b. ) L as d Op g ( Total

MILE S . Nashville 85 Decatur Railroad to u Ala Nashville , Tenn . , Decat r , South 85 North Alabama Railroad to New Decatur Montgomery, Ala W B : El etumpka ranch more to Wetumpka , Ala Western Railway of Alabama In Selma , Ala Southern Railway m to c Ala . Gurnee Junction Blo ton , . , ; m Ardela to . . to Sey our Piper, Ala , m — . m . Hansell Ala . , Total

i r te E rn m o n l s c . L n es O e a d a s N t I c ude i A oun t N . c c . d n L . cf: ( ) p . g

( Total M . )

MILES .

1 Cumberland 8 . Ohio Railroad ( South Division ) C 85 t o . umberland Ohio Junction Greensburg, Ky Glasgow Railroad J n to Glasgow unctio Glasgow, Ky Elkton 85 Guthrie Railroad El to E kton Junction lkton, Ky

Total length of Louisville 85 Nashville Sys 3 0 1 9 03 tem June , Dedu c t Lines owned but n ot operated See Sec tion 4 ) — Paducah 85 Memphis

to . 85 Division ( leased N C . St . L .

Railway ) . Clarksville Princeton Branch : Gracey to Princeton , Ky

L d 5 8 . eng th of lines Operate by L . N Rail 3 0 19 03 road, June , Deda c t

L d but r ines operate , esults not included in in come account 3 4

Length of lines whose earnings are included in income account

i Average length operated during year end ng, 3 0 1 9 03 June ,

m . 2 s m . track owned , ; sidings owned, ; g uage 5 0 0 8 . 8 4 . feet } inches Rail ( steel, miles ) , to lbs

Railroads in which the Louisville 85 Nashville Railroad Com own pany is interested , but which were operated by their organiza t 3 0 1 9 0 3 ions . June , , Lo t 85 St . Nashville, Chat anooga uis Railway m a ori f ( j tv o stock owned) . Birmingham Southern Ra ilroad (one - half of stock owned ) -

Central Transfer Railway Storage Company . ( one - half of stock owned ) Geo rgia Railroad System ( interest as joint lessee) a 85 Atlant , Knoxville Northern Railway ( major i ty of ) stock owned ' s 85 Chicago , Indianapoli Louisville Railway ( ma j ori ty of capital stock owned jointly with

Southern Railway Comp any) .

3 0 9 1 0 3 . Total operated separately, June , Total operated by Lo uisville 85 Nashville Rail d 3 0 1 9 03 roa Company , June , Own ed by Louisvi lle 85 Nashvi lle Railroad Com

pany, but operated by other companies .

Grand total in which Louisville 85 Nashville Railroad Company was interested June 3 0 1 9 03

a 85 Co . Before cquiring the Louisville Nashville Railroad , the Atlantic Coast Lin e Railroad Company had the power to fix rates fro m Md" V a. l V a. n Baltimore, ; Richmond, ; Norfo k, ; Charlesto ,

S . . a. G . G a. C Savannah , , and Jacksonville, Fla , to Atlanta , , but it could not exercise any control over the rates whi c h the Louisville an d Nashville Railroad could m ake from Ohio and Mississippi

R a . iver crossings and Gulf ports to Atlant . Ga But when the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company purchas ed control of the Lo uisville 81 N ashville Railroad Compan v it acquired the power of th e latter Company to make the rates from the Ohio and Mis si ssi i s pp River cros ings and Gulf ports to Atlanta , and thus it a v cquired the power to make rates from Cincinnati , O . Louis ille,

Ky . E n . r d . u M o. . O ; vansville, I , St Lo is , Memphis , Tenn ; New

3 5

t . . o l n . l , , , l n ea s , La , and Mobi e Ala Atlanta Ga The At a tic Coast

to - da to Line Railroad Company y, therefore, has the power make

' m t m M d . , Ga. n o rates to Atlanta , , only fro Baltimore, ; Rich ond

Ga. C. V a. . , , V a. ; Norfolk, ; Charleston, S ; Savannah and Jack E K . m O . s vi . ; , y ; on lle, Fla , but also fro Cincinnati, Louisville vans

"

n . M o . . t. , . S , ville, Ind ; Louis, ; Memphis , Tenn , New Orlea s La

an d . to . Mobile , Ala , Atlanta , Ga In acquiring control of the Louisville 85 Nashville Railroad C a Company, the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad ompany cquired something more than simply con tinuing lines of railroads from

" e to M . . , Montgomery, Ala . , obile, Ala ; New Orleans , La ; M mphis

Lo l e K . E . M o . Tenn . St . Louis , vansville, Ind uisvi l , y , and Cin t c i n n ati . o , O It also acq uired the power make rates from the en tire section of country traversed by the Louisville 85 Nashville C of m Railroad ompany, the products which section co pete in a common territory of destination with the products of the section of coun try traversed by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company proper .

m of The power vested in a combination, in the for trust or

to fix th e i on of tw o f otherwise, fre ght rates the products dif erent sections of country competing with each other in a common terri

of n n an d tory desti atio , is a power which can necessarily does directly restrain trade and commerce as between said c ompeting s of of ections country and said common territory destination, just as effectually as could the Northern Securities Company restrain

of trade and commerce, within the meaning the Sherman Anti

to fix on th e Trust Act, by having the power freight rates products o f a section of country traversed by tw o parallel and competing li of a nes railro d, controlled by it .

The foregoi n g - statement relatin g to the Atlantic Coast Line Company m akes clear a state of facts similar to that which exists

th e a with respect to Southern R ilway Company, viz 1 . th e C n That Atlantic oast Line Company, by the ow ership o f the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and otherwise, has come into absolute control of a part of what is known as the South ern terri tory ; and by the control of the Louisville 85 Nas hville Rail

of tw o road Company and the lines railroads owned by it, controls g reat arm s of railroads reaching into said territory— one coming

E an d h t. from the ast , the ot er from the North and Wes

2 . That th is control has been obtai n ed by the purchase by ‘ th e Atlantic Coast Line Company of the controlling stock of other

r n i ailroads , or by the ow ersh p of their securities , or by lease . 3 6

th e 3 . That the roads thus brought into combination with s Atlantic Coast Line Company are in certain cases parallel road , a or i n other cases competing roads, continuous ro ds intersecting roads .

a c L Com 4 . Th t by this combination the Atlanti Coast ine th e of pany has the power, and inevitable tendency the combination is n ot only to restrai n trade and commerce in the section of terri

to t tory controlled by it, but unreasonably restrain such rade and com merce .

h or n 5 . T at a combination owning controlli g railroads leading from all of the pri n cipal gateways and from all directions of th e compass into a common territory of destination has the po wer to as effectually restrain trade and commerce among the several states

" as does a combination which consists of tw o parallel and competing r oads ; and It will further appear from the evidence set forth in another p art of this petition

n ot n ow That such combination only has the power, but is

to e mm exercising it, restrain and restrict trad and co erce between the Northern and Western States and the Southern States by mak ing and charging rates from the Ohi o an d Mississippi River gate ways to the Southeast that are unreasonably high as compared with E o the rates from the ast t the Southeast .

From the foregoing statements in regard to the Southern Rail w a s a e s y Company and the Atlantic Coa t Line Company, it pp ar

of that each corporation has created a combination railroads, with an eastern arm and a western arm reaching into common Southern

n a o territory, and controlling the freight rates alo g s id lines int said territory .

m of An exa ination the situation, if conducted with the thor oug h n ess which the p owers granted to the United States Govern

to do o s ment would enable it , would also show that these tw system of e s railroads , sometim s by agreements between them elves, and at other times by agreements between themselves and other railroads, through the agencies of Freight Associations and in other ways , become the dominant factor in fixing the freight rates from th e E ast and West into the Southern territory .

As illustrating th e method by which th ese combinations are e m d n stablished and aintained , we irect atte tion to the following

n k Freight Association agreements, and a meeti g held in New Yor

1 st 2 n d 1904 - December and , , at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel . 3 7

FR EIGH T AS SO CIATI ON S .

fi of 1 8 9 7 r i c n On the rst day May, , ce tain ra lroad orporatio s which at that time were and ever since have been common carriers o f freight and conti nuously engaged i n transporting freight in the comm erce which is continuously carried on among the several states f r th e o the United States , constituted themselves into and fo med

Southeastern Mississippi Valley Association . These railroad cor

orati on s G d p were Alabama reat Southern Railroa Company, Ala i n an bama 85 V cksburg Railway Compa y , Cincinnati , New Orle s and

fi a a Texas Paci c Railw y Company, Illinois Centr l Railroad Com l a n D pany, I linois Central R ilroad Compa y ( Louisville ivision ) ,

e 85 am Kansas City, M mphis Birmingh Railroad Company, Louis ‘ 85 e 85 ai ville Nashville Railroad Company, M mphis Charleston R l

a a 85 C ro d Comp ny, Mobile Ohio Railroad ompany, Nashville , Chat

85 tan oo a . g St Louis Railway Company, New Orleans North eastern Railroad Company, Southern Railway Company and Yazoo and Mi ssissippi Valley Railroad Company .

O n th fi da of 1 90 3 o e rst y May, , certain railr ad corporations an d n steamship compa ies , which at that time were and ever since have been common carriers of freight and continuously engaged i n transporting freight in the commerce which is continuously carried on of th e U a among the several states nited St tes, constituted them selves into and formed the Southeastern Freight Association . Thes e

a i w th e o r a al of c rr ers ere S uthe n Railw y Company, C entr Georgia

i R 85 . Ra lway Company, The West Point oute, Western Atlantic R l R . h 85 R , The Seaboard Air Line, Georgia Sout ern Florida ai way

m t an d Co pany, Atlantic Coas Line Railroad Company, Charleston

s a i a m We tern Carolin Ra lw y Co pany, Ocean Steamship Company of m . . 85 T . . Co Savannah, Clyde S S Company, New York exas S S n Old i pa y, Dom nion Steamship Company, The Chesapeake Steam h i s p Company, Baltimore Steam Packet Company, Merchants and

i T 85 r M ners ransportation Company, Norfolk Weste n Railway,

M 85 e Georgia Railroad , acon Birmingham Railway Company, Ge r

d 85 l a gia , Flori a A abam Railway Company, The Wrightsville and T n . . F E C o en ille R R Company , lorida ast oast Railway C mpany,

ll 85 85 Jacksonvi e Southwestern Railroad , Colo . Newberry Laurens

il n 85 C Ra road Company, Virgi ia Southwestern Railway ompany,

orth w es ern . and Atlanta , Knoxville N t Railway Company Each of the said railroad corporations was prior to the said dates the owner and i n the control of and operating and using di stinct and separate lines of railroad fitted up for carrying on business as carriers in the freight traffic between and among the 3 8

h e U states and territories of t nited States, having through lines for the said freight traffic in approximately all that region and on th e coun try lying between the Potoma c and Ohio Rivers north,

of M on th e the Atlanti c Ocean on the east, the Gulf exico south,

and the Mississippi River on the west . to On the said dates, these railroad corporations intending counteract the effect of free competition on the prices of transpor tati en and to establish and maintain arbitrary rates an d to prevent any one of the said railroad corporations from reducing such arbi trary rates and intending to monopolize the commerce among the o several states in the territ ry described, combined, conspired and

confederated and unlawfully agreed together, and did then and

or there enter into contracts, combinations agreements constituting the Articles of Agreement of the Southeastern Freight Association

and the Southeastern Mississippi Valley Associ ation . The territory of the Southeastern Mississippi Valley A ssocia tion was th en and there described to be and is approximately all that section o f the United States lying south of the Ohio River and the Virginias west of the territory of the Southeastern Freight

Association and east of the Mississippi River . The subject matter of the So utheastern Mississippi Valley Association was then and there described to be and i s approxima tely

fi tw o or all traf c for which more of the parties compete, having ori gin and destination within the territory of the Association except

ffi . coal , coke, export and import tra c

The territory of the South - Eastern Freight Association was then and there described to be and is approximately all that sec

of U S a of R tion the nited t tes lying south the Potomac iver, the

Virginia - West Virginia State Line and a line through Middles

of boro , Kentucky and Chattanooga , Tennessee ; west the Atlantic of . to Ocean ; east a line drawn from Chattanooga, Tenn , Selma ,

. to . Ala north of a line drawn from Selma, Ala . , Jacksonville, Fla

Th e subject matter of the South - Eastern Freight Association was then and there described to be and is all traffic for which of two or more the parties compete, having origin or destination within the territory of the Association except coal, coke, cotton, fi export and import traf c . Your petitioner alleges that seventy - five per cent of the traffic fi subject to each association is traf c between the states . By means of the said associations and by means of agreements

th e between them, discriminations hereinbefore complained of, are

an - established d maintained . The South Eastern Freight Associa tion govern s and controls competitive traffic on all lines of railroad 3 9

runn ing from points north of the Potomac River to points within

- E M s a its territory . The said South astern ississippi Valley As oci tion governs and controls competitive traf fic on all railroads run ning from points north of the Ohio River to points within i ts terr i

th e of i to th e tory as described, and from City Cincinnati, Oh o , markets and sources of supply of your petitioner in the Southern

States .

Through and by m eans of the said associations and by agrees ments between them and through the membership of certain domi

n of - : ant carriers in both them, to wit The Southern Railway and m th e the Louisville 85 Nashville Atlantic Coast Line co bination, said carriers are enabled to and do establish and maintain th e

o discriminations hereinbef re complained of .

To an d the end that rates, rules and reg ulations be established

maintained these associations adopt rates , rules and regulations,

h for subscrib w ich when agreed to, are the governing rates all the

i n g companies . Th e agreements under which said subscribers operat e have since their adoption been in force and lived up to and their direct i mmediate and necessary effect is to put a restraint on trade and

commerce among the states . Certain offi cers of the subscribing companies are made by the said Articles of Agreement to constitute the boards and commi ttees of i . ff or o these assoc ations These o icers, meeting as such boards c mmit

i n n w to tees accorda ce ith the rules of the association, confer as every

d fic contemplate change in rates, rules and regulations affecting traf

of th m s an d e association . Such board or co mittee di cuss the same

arrive at a mutual understanding . In accordance with the rules

of or t th e the Association , resolutions recommendations s ating sen se of the committee concerning the matter conferred on are then

. rec ommen da adopted Immediately thereafter, pursuant to such tion s and resolutions of these committees acting under the rules of

recom the Association, rates , rules and regulating embodying such m en dati on s and resolution s are concurrently put into effect an d h promulgated by all t e carriers members of the Association . h d T rough and because of such conferences , mutual understan i ngs and consequent uniformity of action the people within th e i n territory of the Assoc ation including your petitioner , have bee deprived of the benefits which might reasonably be expected to flow from competition in pri ces between the said carriers unim b me paired and untrammeled y any agree nt, joint understanding an d i concurrence of action and from competit on, such as would 40

ta i t l aw ke place should each carrier, as should under the , act inde

penden tly and alone . Compliance with the resolutions or recommendations of th e Association is secured by threats and acts of reprisal against any

d - : va of elinquent member, to wit By in sion its territory by mem bers of the Associ at1on which are efficiently located for th e same ; by diverting traffic from the lines of the delinquent member an d

by other means . of u s Since the formation the said Associations, the s bscriber have been acting in pursuance of the Articles of Agreement and th e

re or of an d e to solutions recommendations the association, hav put in

e f 1 of f ect and kept in force upon the r several lines railroad rules,

l an d fi regu ations rates xed and established by the association, and have declined and refused to fix and establish rates based on the c ost cf construction an d maintenance of their several lines of rail road and such other elements as should be considered in establish a f on of a s ing t rif rates each particular road, and the people the st te

s to th e a or c om ubject association, and all persons engaged in tr de merce with in and am on g the several states included w i thin its

t e to jurisdiction, and your pe itioner have been compell d and are still compelled to pay the rates of freight and submit to th e rules t and regula ions established and maintained by the associations, and have been deprived of the benefits that might be expected to flow from free competiti on between the several lines of transp ortation

m of e l possessed by the me bers thereof, and are deprived the quitab e adjustment of rates that might reasonably be expected to follow th e e free competition between the lines mentioned, and trad , traffic and commerce in such regions and country have been and are restrained , hindered and retarded by the subscribing carriers m by eans of and through these associations . In order tha t it may be made to appear that the said associa tions are formed for the purpose and that the effects stated above

o result from their formation and existence, it is necessary t exam i n e not only the printed articles of agreement as published by th e fi C te association and led with the Interstate Commerce ommit e ,

th e but the acts of association , the acts of the members thereof in a an d ccordance with under the agreement, the construction put upon the agreement by its members and their admissions concern i n i t g .

4 2

A . RTICLE II .

of 1 . A chairman shall be elected by a unanimous vote the

n to of th e associatio . His duties shall be preside at all meetings

n s a u board, keep ece sary records, and promulg te r les and regula tions which may be established by the board, and the rates estab li sh ed by the several members of the association applying on traf

fic t l e u o which these articles re ate, and the rules and r g lations relating to same and perform such other duties as may be assigned f underthe terms o these articles .

2 Th e l of u e of . chairman sha l issue notices reg lar m etings

for n ot the board as hereinafter provided , less than ten days in

of fi for of advance date xed such meeting, accompanied by a list to u of subjects be disc ssed at such meetings . Special meetings the board shall be called by the chairman on request of two or more ’ d n ot S members, provi ed that less than even days notice in advance of is given such special meetings . The members making such

a or to d s s request shall design te the subject subjects be iscu ed,

b e t which shall transmit ed by the chairman with his call .

3 . The chai rman shall cause statements of traffi c carried

fi of within the territory de ned above by each the parties hereto, to be compiled at such tim e and for such periods and distributed in such manner as the board may direct . 4 to . He shall have access either in person or by deputy the

f o fi a . o f books, papers , correspondence, etc , any the of cers, gents, or of to fi so employees the parties hereto, relative said traf c far as

out of s may be necessary to carry the purposes the as ociation .

5 . He shall effect such an office org an i azti on as will enable to fi e him ef ciently perform the duties related in these articl s, sub

ect j to the approval of the Board . RT L E A IC III .

1 . All changes proposed by any member in its rates, rules, and regulations will be submitted to th e board for discussion ; p ro vi ded i m , however, that noth ng herein shall be construed as i pair ing the right of any company to change any rate openly whenever it deems proper .

of 2 . Each c ompan y shall promptly advise the chairmen its

or f purpose to establish any rate, rule, regulation on traf ic to which h these articles relate , toget er with the effective date, and shall

d or furnish the chairman , as soon as issue , copies of all tariffs other issues relating to said traffic . e 3 . Whenever rates have been established by an y member ther h a n o m s ll be unlawful reductions, such as by payment of com is 43

e lli n 1 d n 0 11 un d rbi , sions, re uctio s manifests , or by g or cons derations in the way of free or reduced transportation , or by any illegal device whatsoever .

of 4 . Regular meetings the Board shall be held at such times

a as m ay be mutually agreed upon . Speci l meetings shall be held

r i . upon request of two o more members, as hereinbefore prov ded for

ARTI CLE IV .

n c 1 . The expe ses of the asso iation authorized to be incurred shall be apportioned by the chairmen on the basis of mileage of the lines parties hereto within said territory

ARTICLE V . 1 1 8 9 7 an d 1 . These articles shall become effective on May , , 1 1 8 9 8 conti nue in force until May , , and thereafter, subject to ’ f thirty days written notice by an y member to the chairman o its intention to withdraw therefrom .

c an d ffi 2 . The headquarters of the asso iation the o ce of the chairman shall be at Louisville, Ky . Your petitioner alleges that the articles of association above set forth are still in force at the present time, but it may be that fi some slight unimportant modi cations might have been made , not

f or f of substantially af ecting the same, the purpose and ef ect the i associat on .

n ot It is obvious that these articles can constitute the true, complete and actual agreement governing the subscribing carriers . e Gov Th e powers of the a ssociation are n owher to be found . A

o for w erning B ard is provided , yet it nowhere appears hat the

of s to delib powers the board may be, nor what rule are g overn its

n or or cration, whether recommendations resolutions adopted

or n or to h ow n require a unanimous vote otherwise, ma y votes each d member is entitle . It nowhere appears how compliance with the articles of the association or its resolutions or recommendations is to be secured . Your petitioner all eges that it is denied access to the record s n to of the association and is , therefore u able show in detail and by specific instance that the acts charged above take place through an d f r o . U Go by means the association The nited States ve nment ,

u com thro gh the Interstate Commerce Commission , however, can pel the attendance and testimony of witnesses and production o f books and papers from which the facts hereinbefore stated will be

d o ma e t appear .

Th at the South - Eastern Mississippi Valley Association has power to and does fix and maintain rates appears by th e fact that 44 th e said association has entered into certain contracts an d agree ments with other associations similarly organized and for simi lar purposes and with railroad corporations, establishing and main taini ng rates and classifications for competitive traffic within their

- i - : E j o nt territories, to wit By an agreement between the South ast ern Mississippi Valley Association and the South - Ea stern Freight 1 6 1 9 0 0 As sociation made June , ; an agreement between the Cen tral Freigh t Association and the South - Eastern Mississippi Valley A 1 5 1 8 9 8 e the ssociation made February , ; an agreement b tween

South - Eastern Mississippi Valley Association and th e Mississippi 1 5 1 8 9 8 e e Valley Association made June , ; an agre ment betwe n the

S outh - Eastern Mississippi Valley Association and the Western

n i 1 6 19 01 e b e Trunk Li e Comm ttee made April , ; an ag reem nt twe en th e South - Eastern Mississippi Valley Association and the

s fi 1 1 9 00 e Mi souri Paci c Railway made February , ; an ag reem nt between the Southern Association and the South — E astern Mi ssis s ippi Vallev Association made on or about the 1 5th day of A 11 1 8 9 6 g ust, .

Th at the South - Eastern Mississippi Valley Association has power and does establish and maintain rates , rules and regulations on a competitive business concurrently with other associations, p pears further from the records of proceedings between committees

- Ea of the Trunk Line Association , South stern Mississippi Vallev Association and the Central Freight Association and representa ti ves of Southern Despatc h lines held at the office of the Trunk i 2 5 1 9 0 1 L ne Association, New York City, June , .

The fact tliat rates are maintained and fixed within the terri tory of the association by the association appears also from th e e of ffi record of me ting executive o cers held at the Southern Hotel , f . 2 9 8 99 o M o . 1 St Louis, , on December , ; that the members the association understand and construe the agreement as granting to fix a s the association the power to , establish and m intain rate wi thin its territory appears from a letter from a member of th e a h s ta ssociation to the c airman of the as ociation, con ined in gen 10 0 5 3 0 eral letter of the association numbered and date April , 1 9 0 1 ; that members of the association secure compliance with its rules and regulations in the m anner hereinbefore set out appears m by the sa e letter . Your attorney general having power, through

I e the nterstate Commerce Commission, to secur the attendance and e l testimony of witnesses and the production of books and pap rs , wil be able to make it clearly appear that the facts are as hereinbefore set out . 45

THE SOUTH - EASTE RN FREIGHT AS S O CIATION .

- t The Articles Of Asso ci ation of the South Eastern Freigh Association are as follows : c om For the purposes set forth in the following articles , the pan i es subscribing hereto form the South - Eastern Freight Asso i n c i at o . E ARTICL I .

EC ON — An E S TI 1 . xecutive Board is hereby created , composed of - or r either the President, Vice President , General Manager othe

of m of Officer each ember the association , as desig nated annually by such member ; but each officer thus designated may appoint any

f or of w to other of icer agent his company , as proxy, ith power represent him at any meeting of said Board .

— Th E ll ow n n . E C 2 . e S . xecutive Board sha elect its chairma

a of Said board shall lso elect the chairman the association . and

l x of sa sha l fi his term service and lary . All expenses Of the asso c i ati on shall be subject to the review and approval of the Executive

Board or of a committee to be appointed by said Board .

3 — c e SE C . . The Exe utive Board shall meet upon the writt n r of tw o or or of eq uest more members thereof, upon the call its ch airman .

— f i 4 . A o f E S C. o E majority the members the xecut ve Board ,

n r . prese t or represented by proxy, shall constitute a quo um

— f SE C 5 . It o . shall req uire the unanimous action those pres

i n or t ent person by proxy, to adopt any motion or resolution tha m a y be made before the Executive Board .

— E 6 . E r S C. The xecutive Board shall have power to reconside an y subject that m ay have been considered by the Conference Com mi ttee for hereinafter provided .

LE ARTIC II .

I — f x u i a SEC T ON 1 . Each member O the Ee c t ve Bo ard shall p

a fi fi h i s ffi ffi s point traf c Of cer of company, and such tra c O cers , thu fi a i . appointed, sh ll constitute a Conference Comm ttee Any traf c offic er appointed a member of the Conference Committee m ay ffi appoint any other o cer or agent of his company as proxy, with h im power to represent at any meeting of said Committee . A

a of e or m jority the members of the Confer nce Committee present, u represented by proxy, shall constitute a q orum .

— An O f E C 2 . to S . y member this association proposing make

i ts n m e any change in rates , rules or regulatio s , will suggest the sa to said Conference Commi ttee for consideration and interchan ge of u n i s views, before s ch cha ge shall take effect ; but it distinctly 46 understood that each member reserves to itself at all times the right to take separate and indepen dent action on each and every sub n e to C n or ot . jc t, whether suggested said o ference Committee E ARTICL III .

EC ON - m a S TI 1 . Upon complaint to the chair an of the ssociation

a t e th at illegal devices h ve been resorted to, whe her by secret rebat s,

s or O f i un derbi lli n or drawback , payment comm ssion, or g of weights, or h an otherwise, he s all make investigation thereof, and he or his representatives shall be given access to the record s Of all members

O f far m a fi this association, so as the same y pertain to the traf c with reference to which such complaint may have been ma de . T E AR I CL IV .

EC I ON 1 — S T . The association expenses shall be apportioned a O f E an d f irly between the members the xecutive Board, upon the fi basis so xed by the Board, the chairman of the association shall have authority to collect the same .

ARTI CLE V .

- SECTION 1 . Any member retiring from this association be e fi n ani s for the expiration of the time herein xed, except by u mou

to consent, shall not be released from its Obligations contribute its s fi share of the As ociation expenses , as the same may be xed by the Executive Board . E ARTICL VI .

— I d SECTION 1 . t shall be the duty of the chairman to presi e at all meetin gs of the Conference Committee to keep the records of th e association ; to receive from each member of the association ff copies of tari s or rates established by said member ; to compile , print and distribute such tariffs or rates in conformity with th e Interstate Commerce Act and other laws ; to formulate and dis tribute such statistical information as may be called for by the m E Conference Com ittee or by the xecutive Board, any expense in curred in collecting such information to be apportioned among E the interested members by the chairman of the association . ach ffi member will furnish such reports of freight tra c, and other sta ti sti c al m av b O f data , as be called for y the chairman the associa tion . The chairman shall also receive and list for discussion sub ec ts e n j coming before the Conf re ce Committee, conduct all corre s on den c e p that may be necessary, and communicate such informa tion as to the records of the association as may be requested by

n members and others i terested .

— SE C . 2 . E file ach member shall, at the time of issue, with the chairman O f the association copies of all tariffs or rates that 47 may be issued by such member and in which any other member may be i nterested .

ARTICLE VII .

EC O — so S TI N 1 . Nothing herein contained shall be construed m of as to confer upon a ajority, or any number Of members this h to m or association , the power of aut ority ake rates tariffs upon a or n the line of any other member Of this associ tion, to make joi t rates or tariffs for any other member . Nothing herein contained E o or shall be so construed as to confer upon the xecutive B ard , the

or of or th e Conference Committee , the chairman the association , f E a Ch airman o the xecutive Bo rd , or upon any other committee or

or Offi cer of this association, the power authority to make rates

m of or or tariffs upon the line of any me ber this association , to make joint rates or tariffs for any member of this association . it being di sti n c tlv understood that each member Of this association expressly reserves to itself the exclusive power to make rates an d

i f ow n an d tar f s on its line, to itself and its connections the exclu f sive power to make joint rates and tarif s , free from the dictation or of control any other member or members . E ARTI CL VIII .

— Th of to SE C TION 1 . e Articles this Association shall relate the territory lying south Of the Potomac River to the Virginia to V i r 1n 1a vi a to n . West g state line, then said line Bristol , Ten , i i m K . d H and includ ng Middlesboro , y , J and arriman Junction,

. . on Tenn , to and including Chattanooga , Tenn , and and south and f o a . vi a east a line from Chatt nooga , Tenn , the Alabama Great l l Southern Rai road to Birmingham, Ala . , thence via Southern Rai w a n Ala vi a y to and i cluding Selma , thence Western Railway of

m i a At to i . v Alaba a and ncluding Montgomery, Ala , thence the l G a. antic Coast Line Railroad through Valdosta , , Jasper, Live

s Oak and Lake City , Fla . , to Jacksonville, Fla . , including point

o on the line from M ntgomery to Jacksonville, thence via the South

a Atlantic Seaboard to the Potomac Ri ver . Said articles shall rel te to the rail lines an d steamship lines which are now or may here after become, members of this Association .

2 - S E C. . Said articles shall relate to traffi c having origin or

n th e fi desti ation within territory above de ned, in which two or

m a h more members of this association y be interested, except t at said articles shall not relate to traffic between any two points north of the Virginia - North Carolina state line ; nor to traffic bet ween points on the desig n ated northern and western boundary lines and points outsi de O f the territory as above defined ; nor to traffic from 48

to s r e or through North Atlantic ports South Atlantic port , p op r,

to or t a c or from South Atlantic ports, proper, through Nor h Atl nti ports ; n or to coke and bituminous coal

E I" ARTI CL .

EC ON — N O s r e of S TI 1 . change hall be made in these A ticl s

'

m Assoc i at on . Association, except by consent Of each ember Of the

I E " ART CL .

EC ON — t s of i S TI 1 . These Ar icle Assoc ation shall become effect fi f M a 19 03 ive the rst day o y, , and continue in force until April 3 0th 1 9 04 , Your petitioner allege s that th e articles Of association above

at t set forth are still in force the present time, but it may be tha

‘ fic s n ot sub some slight, unimportant modi ation have been made stan ti all f or e f . th e y a fecting the same, the purpose and f ect Of association .

Th e a st tements made above concerning the purposes, powers and acts of the South - Eastern Mississippi Valley Associ ation applv also to this association except those concerning the particular Arti

’ cles of Ag reement of the South - Eastern Mississippi Valley Asso

i i n c at o .

Your petitioner sta tes that the said South - Eastern Freight Association has entered into certain contracts and agreements with other associations organized similarly and for like purposes and w ith railroad companies establishing and maintaining rates within th eir joint territories and providing for classification Of freight

ffi to - : reem en t - E tra c , wit by an g between the South astern Freight

Association and the South - Eastern Mississippi Valley Association m d 1 6 1 9 00 on i a e June , , and alleges nformation and belief that agreements of the same nature with other associations and with railroad compan ies have been from time to time made and are now i n full force and effe ct .

5 0

r of a th e concu rence members, notify the Chairm n of the other f Association o the proposed action, and prompt advices shall be g iven to the Chairman Of the other As sociation when changes in

th e rat es are established by either Association under its rules .

I" — afi ecti n S TH Recommended, that the rates and rules g the same betw een points in the territory Of the Southeastern Missis sippi Valley Association an d points in that of the Southeastern

F e f . 3 0 1 8 9 7 r ig ht Association in ef ect April , , with such changes and amendments as have been subsequently adopted by con c urrent f a o . ction, be adopted by the several members each Association

ROV E OW EV ER are P ID D , H , That when reductions in rates made between the East and the territory of the Southeastern Freight

n a of Associatio , due notice thereof shall be given to the Chairm n th of e Southeastern Mississippi Valley Association, and reduction rates may be simultaneously made from Western points upon th e

es r tablished basis, by correspondence between the Chai men Of the respective Associations . Wh en changes in rates from E astern or Western points to b r n or O f orde poi ts are contemplated established, the Chairman th e Assoc iation proposing or making the change shall promptly

th e of o fi of th e notify Chairman the other Ass ciation, for the bene t

of members the latter Association .

EV EN — fe e S TH All rates and rules af cting the sam , as estab li sh ed n by concurrent action, shall be published by each Chairma ef on o f ective the same date, and bearing a notati n that the said rate or rule has been iss ued with concurrent action of the oth er Asso i ei at on .

EIGHTH — Should on e Association hold different vi ews regard i n or g any change ruling proposed for concurrence by the other, due t to f no ice shall be given that ef ect , and if any line shall desire i jo nt consideration , the matter shall be taken up at the succeeding r u of m or eg lar meeting the Joint Conference Com ittee, within ten d ays if that time limit be demanded .

N — of te NI TH Recommended further, that a joint committee n five i members, from each Associat on, be appointed with the Chair man O f each Association as the Chairman of each division of the c to ommittee , respectively, consider proposed changes in c lassifica tion, and to report their recommendations to their respective

Associations .

Section Nine of the above Agreement is no longer operative .

With this exception, your petitioner alleges that the above ag ree ment is substantially being carried out at the present time . But 5 1 it may be that some slight unimportant modifications have been

n ot a f i or e m ade, substanti lly af ect ng the purpose effect Of the ag r e ment .

NEW YO RK AGREE ME NT .

There were present at the meeting in New York City, held at

- a H l st 2 d 1 9 04 re re the Waldorf Astori otel, December and , , p sen tati ves Of the railroads whose names are more particularly set Th e forth in the seventh ground Of complaint herein . e full d tailed report Of the proceedings of said meeting and several subsequent ,

a fo r out meetings, at which the plans and the det ils carrying the

of S e agreements aid New York meeting were arranged, are r corded i n e ; 2 5 1 9 04 - 0 5 of t Circular L tter NO , Series , the Southeas ern m 2 8 i of Ga. ec Fre ght Association, under date Atlanta , , D e ber ,

9 4 a of 1 0 . ll The fo owing is l a p rtial report the proceedings , but sufficient to illustrate the ch aracter of the c ombinations and c on s i rac p y, and Of the agreements entered into The following resolution was offered " R es olved That the rates from Ohio and Mississippi River

ffi n crossings, upon tra c movi g from such points and points beyond, to i a a Birmingham and points taking B rmingh m rates, be m de the s to n d ame as present rates from same points Montgomery a Selma .

" a c to Th t the rates from same points , ex ept Cincinnati m Atlanta, and points taking Atlanta rates , be made as uch greater

to Mo than the rates Birmingham, ntgomery and Selma , as the rates f rOm Cincinnati to Birmingham territory are greater than the rates o E . from L uisville, vansville, etc

" That the rates from Cincinnati to Atlanta and points taking

l n a not At a ta r tes , be made greater than the rates from Louisville,

E to s t vansville, etc same points provided , that Atlanta pre en r t ” ates shall apply o maximum .

In response to question as to the change that would be made

E a out n ot d from the st, it was pointed that as the rates were reduce

on n o from the West, except western products, there would be ch ange from the East ; but the belief was expressed that Atlanta would have some grounds to claim a reduction from the East . At this point the resolution was seconded in order to bring it m before the eeting . Roll call being ordered , the same was sus e p nded by request . It was suggested that it would be necessary to settle the west ern rates first before it would be possible to take up the eastern r w as to ates, and therefore , it moved and seconded refer the whole

to to M q uestion a committee report at P . . 5 2

The Chair appoin ted the following committee a R Louisville 85 Nashville R ilroad, Mobile and Ohio ailroad ,

5 ai lr ad 85 8 San Fran c i sco R o , , O St . Louis Cincinnati New rleans a Texas Pacific Railway, Illinois Centr l Railroad, Nashville, Chatta 85 Ra a , n oog a 85 St . Louis ilway, Southern R ilway New Orleans a r a , Northeaste n R ilway, Alabama Great Southern Railway Atlant

85 West Point Railroad .

- M . n . The Sub Committee conve ed at P , and submitted as a proposition the following rates from Cincinnati and Lo uisville

to Atlanta, the basis and reduction being as follows

s s . Class . Rate . Ba i 1 9 8 Louisville to Montgomery Arbitrary reduction 5 cents

Louisville to Montgomery .

Louisville to Montgomery .

Lo uisvi lle to Montgomery . Lo ui sville to Montgomery

Louisville to Montgomery .

3 3 to . B . . Cincinnati Birmingham and Montgomery

n n to h . C 2 6 . . Ci ci nati Birming am and Montgomery

2 . to . D 2 . Cincinnati Birmingham and Montgomery E 48 Louisville to Montgomery H 45 Arbitrary figures

to m o . F 44 . . Cincinnati Bir ingham and Montg mery Flour in

M . 2 2 . i i t o s . o acks . Cinc nnat Birmingham and ntgomery

Adopted . It was dec ided that the rates on commodities should be lined up by the Traffi c Managers so as to harmonize with the change s m ade in the adjustment of class rates .

Th e to E th e question then being in regard rates from the ast, ff but th e Atlantic Coast Line O ered a resolution, suspended same at request Of the Georgia Railroad, and after some discussion the motion was amended to read as follows " OV E Th E a to M D, at the rates from astern Se board Cities Atlanta be reduced the same number of cents per hundred pounds

o to on h e fi as the reduction from L uisville Atlanta, t rst six classes, E ” and on classes A, , and H . The Southern Railway then offered the following resolution " ECO EN E E to R MM D D, That the present rates from the ast i th e Montgomery, Selma, Birmingham and other po nts, west Of line, Chattanooga through Dalton, Rome, Atlanta , Columbus,

E a ff te c om uf ula, be continued, except such rates as may be a ec d by

on n e bination Chattanooga, Rome, Atlanta and points o the lin a bove described . 5 3

E a E as to h a an , F URTH R, Th t the rates from the t C tt ooga

Dalton Rome be made n ot higher than to Atlanta . , , , The Louisville 85 Nashville Railroad Company moved to amend by making the last paragraph read

" E a th e E to a FURTH R , Th t the rates from ast Ch ttanooga ,

r i i m e , Dalton, Rome, Bi mingham and points tak ng Birm ngha rat s n ot to Montgomery, Selma and Opelika , be made higher than ” Atlanta .

5 Th . 8 . . . . e St . L S F R R then asked whether any proposition had been made to reduce the rate s from the West to Birmingham in l r m Ea to i ine with the educed rates fro the st B rmingham, as per

the amendment .

Reference was made to the Mallory Line traffic via Mobile . In response to the statement that unless the rates from the

E t to o t i u e to as M ntgomery were reduced o the same f g r s as Atlanta , the Mallory Line would be hauling freight from the East through Mobile and Montgomery to Atlanta at lower rates than to Mlon t

h i ffi 85 hi gomery, a Sout ern Ra lway O cial stated that the Mobile O o Railroad and the Southern Railway would n ot countenance th e

of to a vi a movement business Atlant Mobile, and that there need be

n o apprehension felt on that score . ’ to on . 85 . R . s A vote was taken the L N R . amendment the ’ i o i Southern Railway Companys resolut on, the following lines v t ng in th e affirmative : i a 85 e . 85 Louisville Nashvill , N C . St . L . Railway, Georg Rail

d t 85 roa , Atlan ic Coast Line, Atlanta West Point .

s The amendment was lo t . ’ A vote was taken on the Southern Ra ilway Company s orig i nal i resolution, the same being adopted by major ty vote ; the lines voting in the negative being :

L 85 85 . Ra ouisville Nashville, N . C . St . L ilway, Georgia Rail i i 85 o . road, Atlantic Coast L ne, Atlanta West P nt The following note was appended to the mi n utes Of the meeting : NOTE — Members of the Committee will Observe that while the rates from Baltimore to Atlanta were fixed i n line wi th th e

L to th e rates from ouisville Atlanta , the relation as between several p OIn ts Of destination in the South on business from the East are fi to N ew xed according the York rates , and after the New York rates are established, the rates from other Eastern ci tie s are based on f di ferentials . It is necessary to Observe this adjustment in fixin g h t e new rates because to Chattanooga the Trunk Line differentials 5 4

” are applied w hile to Atlanta the So uth - Ea ste rn diffe rentials ’ f ofiic e i n fi apply . The Chairman s compiling the rates for nal pub li c ati o t fi fix m to A n n should, herefore , rst the Balti ore rates tla ta

fix he " a f and then t New York rates to Atlant , and base urther e calculati ons on the New York rates . M mbers will also Observe

e fi a th e that no r duction was speci ed from Virgini cities, and in fi n ot de d absence of speci c instructions, the Secretary does un rstan the rates from Virgini a cities are to be reduced .

SE CRETARY .

Thereupon and in pursuance of the resolutions adopted at

m n ar said eeti g, the Companies p ties thereto concurrently published and promulgated printed tariffs ; thus establishing rates in con formity with said resolutions . Your petitioner alleges that the said Associations and the

h O f com agreements between t em, and the actions said railroad

an i es to p at the meeting in New York, amount and are combina tions or conspiracies which directly and necessarily extinguish competition in rates between otherwi se competing railroads engaged In interstate trade or commerce ; that while the said combination s donot m do n ec es result a total suppression Of trade, they by their sary Operation tend to restrain interstate trade and commerce and

l or to create a monopo y in such trade commerce, and deprive the public an d your petitioner from the advantages that would "ow

of from free competition in the making rates , and establish and f continue the discriminations herein before complained o .

T E E E' H MO TIV O F TH I S P TITIONER . The complaints made by the petitioner against the combina tions heretofore described are not made for the mere purpose of

n or attacking the railroads controlling the Southern territory, for

of of - Tr the mere purpose preventing violations the Anti ust Law,

o f but are made for the purpose protecting the Merchants, Manu facturers and Commerce of the Western and Northern States from rates which are discriminatory against them and preferential to

E o competitors in the astern States, and seriously damaging t the interests of the Western and Northern States .

Your petitioner does not feel that it would be warran ted in asking the Presiden t to read in this petition an extended statement

th e h h e of facts showing suc preference and discrimination, for t reason that the entire subject was given a most careful and thor m C w ough examination by the Interstate Com erce ommission, ith an Opportunity for all parties concerned to submit evidence and to 5 5

um e i n i com be heard by arg ent, and its d c sio fully sustain ng the f t r plaints of the petitioner wi ll be found i n the repo rt o the In e " i t state Commerce Commission i n the cases entitled The Fre g h i n Bureau of the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce vs . The C nci l et a . c fi m , , n ati, New Orleans and Texas Pa i c Railway Co p any Albari an d The Chicago Freight Bureau vs . The Louisville , New y l r Com m et a . and Chicago Railway Co pany, ( Interstate Comme ce mission reports) .

O f d th e I te A brief statement , however, the facts foun by n r

mi n er an d ified state Commerce Com ssm is p tinent at this time, just

’ bv the vital importance to the petitioner of the complai nts made herein . In stating the complaints made in the c ase s above referr ed to m , the Interstate Co merce Commission said

" The complaints in these cases which wer e heard and may be

of o fi r Bu u disposed t gether, were led, respectively, by the F eight rea Of the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce and the Chicago Freight

u Th e r to as i B reau . former will hereinafter be eferred the Cinc n ”

. nati ease , and the latter as the Chicago case

" se In both complaints , Baltimore, Philadelphia , New York , Bo ‘ ton d n E d and contiguous territory , are esig ated astern Seaboar

n d a : C T . R a Territory Knoxville and hattanooga enn ; ome Atlant , i s nd Ga. : an d . Me a Birmingham, Anniston Selma, Ala , r dian, Mis , ‘ ’

t r O . contiguous terri ory, Southe n Territory ; and Cincinnati , ; Lo i i l . I E In d . h a d uisv lle, Ky ndianapol s and vansvi le, , C icago n ‘ i n Te d St L M O . r Cairo , Ill , . ouis, and cont guous territory, Ce tral ’ i r r to . i y These designat ons will be applied in this opinion .

" The general ground Of complaint in the Cincinnati cas e 1s th at the rates of freight established by the defendant carriers from E to h the astern Seaboard and Central territories, respectively Sout ‘ r of and ern ter itory, unjustly discriminate in favor the merchants manufacturers whose busin ess is located and transacted in Eastern a rs Se board territory, and against the merchants and manufacture whose business is located and transacted in Cincinnati and other

’ ‘ ‘ a o f th e; points in Central territory . It is stated th t the burden complaint lies against the r elati on which exists between the cur rent rates of freight on m an ufac tured ar ti c les an d m erch an dis e’ ‘ (numbered classes .) from E astern Seaboard territory to Southern

of c om territory, and the current rates freight exacted upon like

mo diti es e t to S an d when shipp d from Central terri ory the outh , against the unfair basis of general construction of th e tariffs un der consi deration whereby th e rate s ch arged for transportation of 5 6

" commodities classified under numbered classes bear a much h igher percentage relation to the rates from New York than do th e ’ rates on commodities en um erated n n der th e lettered classes (food ‘ p roducts and similar heavy traffic ) and it is alleged that this i mproper relation between the rates has th e effec t of restraining an d impeding the growth of productive industries in Central terri tory and encouragi ng an d promoting similar industries in Eastern

S of eaboard territory, and is the direct result an ag reement estab

li sh e b ' c on ven ti on fi of i n d y between the of cers defendants, whereby order to secure stability in rates and to prevent comp etition between th e lines leading respe ctively from the Eastern Se aboard an d Cen

t to to to E tern ral territories the South, it was decided secure the as lines and Eastern territory the traffic in merchandise and manu factured to e fi d articles, and the West rn territory the traf c in foo ’ an d simi lar products . heavy commodities .

s of its statem en t of c t e In the cour e its con lusions, the Inters at Comm erce Commission said :

The reasonableness in themselves of the rates from Central territory is a matter materi al to the issue raised by the charge i n E both cases, that the relation between those rates and the astern

r un us tl to o ates is j y prejudicial Central territ ry, and the question i s directly presented in the Chicago case by the allegation that the rates from Cinci nnati and oth er Ohio River crossings to Southern ‘ ’ of territory are unreasonably high . Where the reasonableness

ra a m a ma n ot i s tes is in question, comp rison y be de, only w th rate

on of th e on th e another line same carrier, but also with those lines of other and distinct carriers— the value of the comparison being dependent in all cases upon the deg ree of si milarity of cir c um stan ces and conditions attending the transp ortati on for which th e rates compared are charged . It appears from the tabular state

our fi of all- rai l ss ments in ndings fact, giving distances and cla r l m ates from Cincinnati and Chicago in Centra territory, and fro

i to New York and other Northeastern c ties, points in Southern

on m s th e m e territory, that a ileage basi rates fro the form r ( par ti cularl on or y, those the higher numbered classes ) are largely in e h xcess Of those from t e latter . For the purpose of i llustration th e f a on f ollowing t ble is given, which shows the current rates goods o Class 1 from Cincinnati and Chicago and from New York to points n amed in Southern territory, and what the rates from Cincinnati an d Chicago would be on the basis of the ( all - rail) mileage rates from New York

5 8

1 24c . U a r Boston and New York, nder the rate last named, shippe

b of las 1 m an d New of a car load of l s . C s goods fro Boston York to Meridian would pay less than a shipper of a lik e car

s n th e r of th e load from Chicago , notwith ta ding elative proximity

f r 6 to o . U to 1 latter city the common point destination ( p Ma ch ,

1 8 94 an d to w as 114c . , the rate from New York Boston Meridian ) Further examples of simi lar import might be taken from the tab

of s ular statements rates and di tances, but the above are deemed ffi ” su cient .

V of fi of c I Com In iew the foregoing ndings fa t, the nterstate merce Commission adjusted th e rates from Cincinn ati an d Chi cago with reference to the rates from the Eastern cities as follows

CINCINNATI .

2 3 . . 4 . 45 3 7 2 7 54 40 3 0 64 54 44 7 3 6 0 45 9 8 8 0 6 2 74 6 0 46 7 3 6 0 45 9 8 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

FROM CHI CAGO . 6 2 3 . 5 . . O . 4 T 1 . . Knoxville 9 3 7 9 6 2 44 3 7 3 2 Chattanooga 1 00 8 8 6 5 47 3 9 3 4 Rome 1 14 9 7 7 9 6 1 49 3 8 Atlanta 1 2 6 1 0 7 8 5 6 2 5 0 3 9 Meridian 1 14 9 8 8 2 6 0 4 7 3 8 Birmingham 1 1 1 9 5 72 5 2 44 3 4 Anniston 1 2 6 1 0 7 8 5 62 5 0 3 9 Selma 1 2 8 1 12 8 9 6 6 5 3 3 8

O E — to ( N T . The rates from Chicago and Cincinnati Meridian

a th e are m de substantially the , same, because the larger portion of haul from Chicago is in Central territory, where rates are lower . )

th e mm o m In making above order, the Interstate Co erce C m is sion said 5 9

An order will be i ssued directing the defendants engaged in transporting traffic from Chicago and Cincinnati to Southern territory to desist from ch arging higher rate s on the traffi c em

i n t C braced h e numbered lasses from those cities , respectively, than

tw o e s those in the preceding tables , and to make all the n ces ary

o e readjustments of their tariffs . These rates are a c nservativ f i t i reduction o the existing rates and, while is believed they w ll

‘ ’ go far to do away with the undue prejudice to which Central terri

so low tory is now subjected, they are, probably, not as they might be made if fuller and more accurate data were accessible . If the rates by the Eastern Seaboard lines be taken as the standard of

i m i n th e comparison , the rates in these tables w ll be found to ake main due allowance for the estimated effect on those rates of water

a ro competition via th e Atlantic . They are also higher th n the p portions of the through rates from New York via Cinci nnat i to

h n M di a s C attanooga , Birmi gham and eri an , llowed for the haul

to s w i n a from Cincinnati tho e points , and which ere effect for long period of years ; and they yield a rate per ton per mi le large ly i n excess o f the reported cost per ton per mile of freight 0 1 th e roads from the Oh io south ( and in other sections of th e country ) and much above the average of their receipts per ton per mile .

f Th e ar s ( See tables in statement o facts . ) v e it seem scarcely nec essary to add, prescribed as maximum . rates and are not intended to be prohibitory of such lower rates as the carriers i ntereste d m av ” fin d to be just and reasonable .

Subsequently the action of the Interstate Commerce Commis

U r sion was reviewed by the nited States Supreme Cou t, in the case of m Interstate Commerce Co mission vs . Cincinnati , New Orleans

85 fi 6 4 9 1 7 U S . 7 Texas Paci c Railway Company, . , , in which case it was h eld that :

Congres s has not conferred upon the Interstate Commerce Commission the legislative power of prescribing rates either maxi m um or i or an d n ot , m nimum , absolute ; as it did give the express

to n ot i o power the Commission, it did ntend t secure the same result i ndirectly by empowering that tribunal to determine what in m reference to the past was reasonable and just, whether as maximu , 6 0

to m o s minimum or absolute, and then enable it obtain fro the c urt a peremptory order that in the future the railroad compani es

sh ould follow the rates thus determined to have been in the past ” reasonable an d just . Since th at decision the railroad companies controlling

f r u 1 1 9 05 the Southern territory continued in e fect until Feb ary , , the rates declared by the Interstate Commerce Commission to be

r 1 unjust, preferential and discriminato y . From February ,

1 9 0 5 a e m R , the railro ds l ading fro Ohio iver crossings, and also from Eastern cities established rates in accord with th e resolutions

adopted and agreements reac hed at th e meeting held in New York

l st 2 d 1 904 of December and , , a partial detailed statement which is

" h ereinbefore given under the caption of New York Ag ree ” h 9 to a u of . W on 1 1 05 ment ile February , , the rates n mber Southern points were reduced both from the Ohio River crossings

m E i n m and fro the ast, the same relative discriminat o is still ain

i n d ta e .

th i th e As found by e Interstate Commerce Comm ssion, action of the ill egal combinati on herein described i s greatly to the damage of the commerce of the Northern and Western States ; but such action i s also greatly to the damage of the commerce of the South

ern States bv depriving the people of those States of the advantages

th at would flow from free competition of independent railroad E lines, leading from the astern and Virginia gateways and South i Atlantic ports into the Southern territory, and by depriv ng the people of the Southern States of the advantages that would "ow

e of from fre competition independent railroad lines, leading from the Ohio and Mississippi River gateways into the Southern

territory . 6 1

I E PRAYER O F PE TIT ON R .

Wh erefore your petitioner respectfully asks that you will instruct th e Attorney General of the United States to begin pro Ceedi n g s i n the Uni ted States Court :

To th e 1 . enjoin the Southern Railway Company and

Atlantic a st Line Company from acqui ring or attempting to acquire further stock of railroad companies in the Southern terri

i n n ow s tory, and from vot g the stock which they hold in railroad

of ow n i other than the stock their companies, and from exercis ng or to i u or attempting exerc se any control , direction, s pervision influence whatever over the acts and doings of said other railway

i to on of compan es, and secure such other relief behalf the people of U it a s the n ed States against said illegal combin tions, conspiracie

f n and monopolies as the law and equity o the situation dema d .

2 T . o i nstitute proceedings in equity to dissolve the said i i t Southeastern Miss ss ppi Valley Association, and Southeas ern Freig ht Association ; and to enjoin the companies subscribers

h of ei i i t ereto, and all and each them from further agre ng, comb n ng,

to a a conspiring and acting together est blish and maint in rules, regulations and rates for carrying freight upon their several lines

d to on of of railroa , and secure such other relief behalf the people of U t the nited S ates against said illegal combinations, conspiracies an d s monopolie as the law an d equity of the situation demand .

3 T . o i enjoin the Southeastern M ssissippi Valley Association, and the Southeastern Freight Association from carrying into effect

e i o e the joint agreem nts entered nt betw en them , and from con ti n ui n to to g agree, combine, conspire and act together establish m for aintain rules, regulations and rates carrying freight upon the several lines of railroads whose companies are directly or indirectly

to an d to u parties said agreement, sec re such other relief on behalf

of U te t of the people the ni d Sta es against said illegal contracts,

i an d combinations, consp racies monopolies as th e law and equity of the situation demand . 6 2

4 . To enjoin the companies parties to the meeting in New

York City from carrying into efi ect the agreements entered into at sai e to m d me ting, and from continuing agree, co bine, conspire and

to u act together establish and maintain rules , reg lations and rates

u of to for carrying freight pon their several lines railroad, and secure such other relief on behalf of the people of th e United States

i n aga st said illegal combination, conspiracy and monopoly as the law and equity of the situation demand .

Respectfully submitted,

’ Th e ec e v e rs an d S h ’ R i ip p e rs A s s o c iat i o n of Cin c i n n at i .

. P n t . ES By R H W T, resi de .

i ssi r SON Comm on e . WILLIAM ,

R F S T U U B . SMI H,

Co u n s el . H Y T H ENR . U NT

1 9 1 05 . Cincinnati , Ohio, June ,