Show MEANING OF THE STATUTE Assuming then that the Sherman act applies to railways the justice discusses dis-cusses the meaning of the language ol the statutes He says The next question to be discussed is as to what is the true construction of the statute assuming that i applies to common carriers by railroad What is the meaning of the language as used in the statute that every contract combination combi-nation in the form of trust or otherwise or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states or with foreign nations ishereby declared to be illegal Is it confined to ie1al i confned a contract con-tract or combination which Is only In unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce com-merce or does it include what the language lan-guage of the act plainly and in terms covers all contracts of that nature We are asked to regard the title of this act as indicative of its purpose to Include I In-clude only those contracts which were I unlawful at common law but which require re-quire the sanction of a federal statute in order to be dealt with In a federal court I Is said that when terms which are known to Ice common law are used in a federal statute those terms are to be given the same meaning that they receive at common law and that when the language lan-guage of the title is to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints re-straints and monopolies i means those restraints and monopolies which the common com-mon law regarded as unlawful and which were to be prohibited by the federal statute stat-ute We are of the opinion that the language lan-guage used in the title refers to and includes in-cludes and was intended to include those restraints and monopolies which are made unlawful in the body of the statute stat-ute I is to the statute itself that resort re-sort must be had to learn the meaning thereof ALL AGREEMENTS ILLEGAL The conclusion which we have drawn from examination Into the question before be-fore us is that the antitrust act applies ap-plies to railroads and that it renders illegal legal all agreements which are In restraint re-straint of trade or commerce a we have above defined that expression and the question then arises whether the agreement agree-ment before us is of that nature Does the agreement restrain trade or commerce in any way so as to be a violation of the act We have no doubt that it does The agreement on its face recites that it Is entered into for the purpose of mutual urotectlon by establishing and maintaining reasonable reason-able rates rules and regulations on all freight traffic both through and local To that end the association is formed and a body created which is to adopt rules which wheri agreed to are to be I the governing rates for all the com I I panies and a violation of which subjects the defaulting company to a payment of a penalty and although the parties I have a right to withdraw from the agreement agree-ment on giving 2 days notice of a desire de-sire so to do yet while in force and assuming I as-suming it to be lived up to there can be no doubt that its direct immediate I and necessary effect is to put a restraint upon trade or commerce as described in I the act For these reasons the suit of the government gov-ernment can he maintained without proof I of the allegation that the agreement was I I entered into for the purpose of restraining restrain-ing trade or commerce or for maintaln Ir = rates above what was reasonable I The necessary effect of the agreement is to restrain trade or commerce no matter mat-ter what the intent was on the part of those who signed it I We think that the fourth section of the act invests the government with full I power and authority to bring such action as this and if the facts be proved an injunction should issue I I For the reasons given the decree of the United States circuit court of appeals and of the circuit court for the district of Kansas must be reversed and the case I remanded to the circuit court for further opinion fur-ther proceedings in conformity wtih this |