Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/327

 240

THE GREEN BAG

fitted, it was not long before the President received an affirmative answer to his question and Judge Harmon was nominated and appointed attorney-general, which position he occupied until the close of Mr. Cleveland's administration in March, 1897. On the' bench Judge Harmon was dis tinguished for that trait which is always marked in judicial characters of the highest class, namely, the desire that every interest should be heard and every argument con sidered which could affect the question to be determined. He was patient and careful to a degree, and the argument of the young est practitioner was given as complete con sideration as that of the more distinguished members of the bar. As a rule, he was prompt in arriving at a conclusion, and always firm in adhering to and enforcing it, when reached. He was not to be driven from logical conclusions by stress of argu ment or weight of character. Quite a number of his opinions may be found among the published reports of" his court, and they are always marked by thoroughness of consideration, breadth of view and strict adherence to principle. The same qualities which distinguished him as a judge were manifest in his work at the bar. A skilful, accurate and deter mined advocate, his conduct of a trial was tempered by good feeling and careful con sideration for the rights and even the sensibilities of all concerned; so that he frequently emerged from a warm contest, a firm friend of persons with whom he had been contesting and who were previously unknown to him. He is a strong, clear and at times eloquent speaker. He has also a great sense of humor, so that anything which is legitimately amusing or may be made the subject of a witticism rarely escapes him. His efforts in the Supreme Court of the United States, both in his capacity as attorney-general and at other times, have met with a good deal of success. During his term in that office the question as to "^trusts," combinations and conspiracies in

restraint of commerce, was first extensively agitated. The first of the great cases- on that subject, The United States v. The Trans-Missouri Freight Association, was argued by him at the October term, 1896. It was a suit in equity to enjoin the exe cution of an agreement forming the defen dant association, for the purpose of estab lishing and maintaining rates of freight, on the ground that the agreement and the existence of the association were in violation of the act of July 2, 1890, entitled, " An Act to Protect Tradi' and Commerce against Unlawful Restraints and Monopolies." Judge Harmon was opposed in that case by a great array of counsel, representing the various railroad companies composing the defendant association, among whom were Mr. James C. Carter, Mr. E. J. Phelps, Mr. John F. Dillon, Mr. W. F. Guthrie and several other lawyers of great reputation. Some two days were consumed in the argu ment in the Supreme Court. The principal questions discussed were whether the act of June 2, 1890, was applicable to railroad companies, and whether the agreement under which defendant companies were acting was in violation of the act. It will be remembered that the terms of the act are very general, declaring that " every con tract, 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; and every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such conspiracy shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor," etc.: also that " every con tract or combination in form of trust or otherwise or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is declared illegal. It was contended by the defendants that the act was not intended to and did not apply to the business of transportation by railroad, because such transportation did not come within the ordinary meaning of commerce; and further, because that subject was dealt with by the Interstate Com