United States v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis
224 U.S. 383, 32 S. Ct. 507, 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2310 (1912)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A combination of companies that gains exclusive control over an essential facility, which competitors are practically compelled to use due to natural or topographical barriers, constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade under the Sherman Act unless access is provided to all competitors on fair and non-discriminatory terms.
Facts:
- Due to the Mississippi River and surrounding hills, St. Louis is a geographic bottleneck, making it impractical for each of the 24 converging railroad lines to have its own bridge and terminal facilities.
- Initially, three independent terminal systems provided access to and across the river: the Wiggins Ferry Company, the Eads Bridge system, and the Merchants' Bridge system.
- In 1889, several railroad companies formed the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis (Terminal Company) to acquire and operate terminal facilities as a unified system.
- The Terminal Company was owned by a group of proprietary railroad companies, and admission of any new railroad company to joint ownership required the unanimous consent of all existing owners.
- Over time, the Terminal Company acquired stock control of the Merchants' Bridge system and then the Wiggins Ferry Company, consolidating all three independent systems under its control.
- This consolidation gave the Terminal Company's 14 proprietary railroad owners complete control over every feasible means of railroad access into, out of, and through St. Louis.
- The proprietary companies contractually obligated themselves to use the Terminal Company's facilities for all their business crossing the river.
- The Terminal Company imposed arbitrary hauling charges and engaged in discriminatory rebilling practices that disadvantaged non-proprietary railroads and the commerce of St. Louis.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a bill in equity against the Terminal Railroad Association and 37 other defendants in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
- The government alleged that the defendants' arrangement was a combination in restraint of trade and a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Act.
- The case was heard by four Circuit Judges, who were equally divided in their judgment (2-2).
- Due to the deadlock, the Circuit Court entered a decree dismissing the government's bill.
- The United States appealed the dismissal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the unification of substantially all railroad terminal facilities in a city under the exclusive ownership and control of a subset of railroad companies, where geographical conditions make those facilities essential for any railroad to enter the city, constitute a combination in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Lurton
Yes. The unification of these terminal facilities constitutes a combination in restraint of trade because the unique geographical conditions of St. Louis make the combined terminals an essential facility that all railroads are compelled to use. While unifying terminals can be beneficial, this combination is illegal because it is under the exclusive ownership and control of only a fraction of the railroads that depend on it. This structure gives the proprietary companies the power to restrain competition from non-proprietary lines by excluding them from ownership and imposing discriminatory terms. The combination is not an impartial agent for all users but an instrument to dominate commerce passing through the St. Louis gateway, thereby violating both the first and second sections of the Sherman Act.
Analysis:
This decision is foundational for the 'essential facilities' or 'bottleneck' doctrine in antitrust law. It establishes that control over a resource that is indispensable for competition and cannot be practically duplicated can create an antitrust violation if access is denied to competitors on reasonable terms. The case demonstrates that the Sherman Act applies not just to mergers that eliminate competition, but also to joint ventures or combinations that control a critical infrastructure gateway. The remedy ordered—mandating open access rather than dissolution—showed the Court's willingness to preserve the efficiencies of a natural monopoly while curing its anticompetitive effects, influencing remedial approaches in future antitrust cases.
