Syllabus. [290] UNITED STATES v. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSOCIATION. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 67. Argued December 8, 9, 1896.-Decided March 22, 1897. [166 U. S., 290.] The dissolution of the freight association does not prevent this court from taking cognizance of the appeal and deciding the case on its merits; as, where parties have entered into an illegal agreement and are acting under it, and there is no adequate remedy at law, and the jurisdiction of the court has attached by the filing of a bill to restrain such or like action under a similar agreement, and a trial has been had and judgment entered, the appellate jurisdiction of this court is not ousted by a simple dissolution of the association, effected subsequently to the entry of judgment in the suit. While the statutory amount must as a matter of fact be in controversy, yet the fact that it is so need not appear in the bill, but may be shown to the satisfaction of the court. The provisions respecting contracts, combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign countries, contained in the act of July 2, 1890, c. 647, "to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," apply to and cover common carriers by railroad; and a contract between them in restraint of such trade or commerce is prohibited, even though the contract is entered into between competing railroads, only for the purpose of thereby affecting traffic rates for the transportation of persons and property. The act of February 4, 1887, c. 104, "to regulate commerce," is not incon- [291] sistent with the act of July 2, 1890, as it does not confer upon competing railroad companies power to enter into a contract in restraint of trade and commerce, like the one which forms the subject of this suit. Debates in Congress are not appropriate sources of information, from which to discover the meaning of the language of a statute passed by that body. • Bill asking the dissolution of the association and for an injunction to restrain the several companies from carrying into effect the agreement was dismissed by the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas (53 Fed., 440). See p. 80. The decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit (58 Fed., 58). See p. 186. Reversed by the Supreme Court in the present case (166 U. S., 290). Syllabus copyrighted, 1897, by Banks & Bros. Statement of the Case. The prohibitory provisions of the said act of July 2, 1890, apply to all contracts in restraint of interstate or foreign trade or commerce without exception or limitation; and are not confined to those in which the restraint is unreasonable. In order to maintain this suit the government is not obliged to show that the agreement in question was entered into for the purpose of restraining trade or commerce, if such restraint is its necessary effect. This agreement, though legal when made, became illegal on the passage of the act of July 2, 1890, and acts done under it after that statute became operative were done in violation of it. The fourth section of the act invests the Government with full power and authority to bring such a suit as this; and, if the facts alleged are proved, an injunction should issue. On the 2d of July, 1890, an act was passed by the Congress of the United States, entitled "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies." 26 Stat. 209, c. 647. This act is given in full in the margin." • An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies. Be in enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SEC. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. SEC. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. SEC. 3. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall · Statement of the Case. [292] On the 15th day of March, 1889, all but three of the defendants, the railway companies named in the bill, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. SEC. 4. The several Circuit Courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be njoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises. SEC. 5. Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under section four of this act may be pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpœnas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof. SEC. 6. Any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section one of this act, and being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law. SEC. 7. Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any Circuit Court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. SEC. 8. That the word “ person," or "persons," wherever used in this act shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country. Approved, July 2, 1890. Statement of the Case. made and entered into an agreement by which they formed themselves into an association to be known as the "TransMissouri Freight Association," and they agreed to be governed by the provisions contained in the articles of agree ment. The memorandum of agreement entered into between the railway companies named therein, stated, among other things, as follows: "For the purpose of mutual protection by establishing and maintaining reasonable rates, rules and regulations on all freight traffic, both through and local, the subscribers do hereby form an association to be known as the Trans-Missouri Freight Association, and agree to be governed by the following provisions." "ARTICLE I. "The traffic to be included in the Trans-Missouri Freight Association shall be as follows: [293] "1. All traffic competitive between any two or more members hereof, passing between points in the following described territory: Commencing at the Gulf of Mexico, on the 95th meridian, thence north to the Red River; thence via that river to the eastern boundary line of the Indian Territory; thence north by said boundary line and the eastern line of the State of Kansas to the Missouri River at Kansas City; thence via the said Missouri River to the point of intersection of that river with the eastern boundary of Montana; thence via the said eastern boundary line to the international line,— the foregoing to be known as the 'Missouri River line,'-thence via said international line to the Pacific coast; thence via the Pacific coast to the international line between the United States and Mexico; thence via said international line to the Gulf of Mexico, and thence via said gulf to the point of beginning, including business between points on the boundary line as described. [294] “2. All freight traffic originating within the territory as defined in the first section when destined to points east of the aforesaid Missouri River line." Certain exceptions to the above article are then stated as to the particular business of several railway companies, which was to be regarded as outside and beyond the provisions of the agreement. Article II provided for the election of a chairman of the organization and for meetings at Kansas City, or otherwise, as might be provided for. By section 2 of that article each road was to" designate to the chairman one person who shall be held personally responsible for rates on that road. Such person shall be present at all regular meetings, when possible, and shall represent his road, unless a superior officer is Statement of the Case. present. If unable to attend he shall send a substitute with written authority to act upon all questions which may arise, and the vote of such substitute shall be binding upon the company he represents." Section 3 provides that: "A committee shall be appointed to establish rates, rules and regulations on the traffic subject to this association, and to consider changes therein, and make rules for meeting the competition of outside lines. Their conclusions, when unanimous, shall be made effective when they so order, but if they differ the question at issue shall be referred to the managers of the lines parties hereto; and if they disagree it shall be arbitrated in the manner provided in article VII." By section 4 it was provided that: "At least five days' written notice prior to each monthly meeting shall be given the chairman of any proposed reduction in rates or change in any rule or regulation governing freight traffic; eight days in so far as applicable to the traffic of Colorado or Utah." Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of article II read as follows: SEC. 5. At each monthly meeting the association shall consider and vote upon all changes proposed, of which due notice has been given, and all parties shall be bound by the decision of the association, as expressed, unless then and there [295] the parties shall give the association definite written notice that, in ten days thereafter, they shall make such modification notwithstanding the vote of the association: Provided, That if the member giving notice of change shall fail to be represented at the meeting, no action shall be taken on its notice, and the same shall be considered withdrawn. Should any member insist upon a reduction of rate against the views of the majority, or if the majority favor the same, and if, in the judgment of such majority, the rate so made affects seriously the rates upon other traffic, then the association may, by a majority vote, upon such other traffic put into effect corresponding rates to take effect on the same day. By unanimous consent, any rate, rule or regulation relating to freight traffic may be modified at any meeting of the association without previous notice. "SEC. 6. Notwithstanding anything in this article contained, each member may, at its peril, make at any time, without previous notice, such rate, rule or regulations as may be necessary to meet the competition of lines not members of the association, giving at the same time notice to the chairman of its action in the premises. If the chairman, upon investigation, shall decide that such rate is not necessary to meet the direct competition of lines not members of the association, and shall so notify the road making the rate, it shall immediately withdraw such rate. At the next meeting of the association held after the making of such rate, it shall be reported to the association, and if the association shall decide by a two-thirds vote that such rate was . not made in good faith to meet such competition, the member offending |