and that as an appeal would only lie to this court in this character of suit under the act of March 3, 1891, (chapter 517, supplement, R. S. 901,) where that amount is in controversy, the appeal should be dismissed.

As to the first ground, we think the fact of the dissolution of the association does not prevent this court from taking cognizance of the appeal and deciding the case upon its merits.

The prayer of the bill filed in this suit asks not only for the dissolution of the association, but, among other things, that defendants should be restrained from continuing in a like combination, and that they should be enjoined from further conspiring, agreeing, or combining and acting together to maintain rules and regulations and rates for carrying freight upon their several lines, etc. The mere dissolution of the association is not the most important object of this litigation. The judgment of the court is sought upon the question of the legality of the agreement itself for the carrying out of which the association was formed, and if such agreement be declared to be illegal, the court is asked not only to dissolve the association named in the bill, but that the defendants should be enjoined for the future.

PAINS TO SHOW DISSOLUTION.

The defendants, in bringing to the notice of the court the fact of the dissolution of the association, take pains to show that such dissolution had no connection or relation whatever with the pendency of this suit, and that the association was not terminated on that account. They do not admit the illegality of the agreement, nor do they allege their purpose not to enter into a similar one in the immediate future. On the contrary, by their answers the defendants claim that the agreement is a perfectly proper, legitimate and salutary one, and that it or one like it is necessary to the prosperity of the companies. If the injunction were limited to the prevention of any action by the defendants under the particular agreement set out, or if the judgment were to be limited to the dissolution of the association mentioned in the bill, the relief obtained would be totally inadequate to the necessities of the occasion, provided an agreement of that nature were determined to be illegal. The injunction should go further, and enjoin defendants from entering into or acting under any similar agreement in the future. In other words, the relief granted should be adequate to the occasion.

As an answer to the fact of the dissolution of the association, it is shown on the part of the government that these very defendants, or most of them, immediately entered into a substantially similar agreement, which was to remain in force for a certain time, and under which the companies acted, and in regard to which it does not appear that they are not still acting. If the mere dissolution of the association worked an abatement of the suit as to all the defendants, as is the claim made on their part, it is plain that they have thus discovered an effectual means to prevent the judgment of this court being given upon the question really involved in the case. The defendants having succeeded in the court below, it would only be necessary thereafter to dissolve their association and instantly form another of a similar kind, and the fact of the dissolution would prevent an appeal to this court or procure its dismissal if taken. This result does not and ought not to follow. Although the general rule is that equity does not interfere simply to restrain a possible future violation of law, yet 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 any 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.

DIFFERENCE IN PRIVATE CONTROVERSIES.

Private parties may settle their controversies at any time, and rights which a plaintiff may have had at the time of the commencement of the action may terminate before judgment is obtained or while the case is on appeal, and in any such case the court, being informed of the facts, will proceed no further in the action. Here, however, there has been no extinguishment of the rights (whatever they are) of the public, the enforcement of which the government has endeavored to procure by a judgment of a court under the provisions of the act of congress above cited. The defendants can not foreclose those rights nor prevent the assertion thereof by the government as a substantial trustee for the public under the act of congress, by any such action as has been taken in this case. By designating the agreement in question as illegal and the alleged combination as an unlawful one, we simply mean to say that such is the character of the agreement as claimed by the government. That question the government has the right to bring before the court and obtain its judgment thereon. Whether the agreement is of that character is the question herein to be decided.

We think, therefore, the first ground urged by defendants for the dismissal of the appeal is untenable

We have no difficulty either in sustaining the jurisdiction of this court in regard to the second ground, that of the amount in controversy in the suit.

The bill need not state in so many words, that a certain amount exceeding $1,000 is in controversy in order that this court may have jurisdiction on appeal. The statutory amount must as a matter of fact be in controversy, yet that fact may appear by affidavit after the appeal is taken to this court, (Whiteside v. Haselton, 110 U. S. 296; 4 Sup Ct., 1; Red River Cattle Company v. Needham, 137 U. S. 632; 11 Sup. Ct., 208), or it may be made to appear in such other manner as shall establish it to the satisfaction of the court. A stipulation between the parties as to the amount is not controlling, but in the discretion of the court it may be regarded in a particular case, and with reference to the other facts appearing in the record as sufficient proof of the amount in controversy to sustain the jurisdiction of this court.

RESTRAINT OF TRADE APPARENT.

The bill shows here an agreement entered into (as stated in the agreement itself) for the purpose of maintaining reasonable rates to be received by each company executing the agreement, and the stipulation entered into between the parties hereto shows that the daily freight charges on interstate shipments collected by the railway companies at points where they compete with each other were, at the time of the making of the agreement mentioned in the pleadings herein and have been since, more than $1,000 This agreement so made, the government alleges, is illegal as being in restraint of trade, and was entered into between the companies for the purpose of enhancing the freight rates. The companies, while denying the illegality of the agreement or its purpose to be other than to maintain reasonable rates, yet allege that without some such agreement competition between them for traffic would be so severe as to cause

great losses to each defendant and possibly ruin the companies represented in the agreement. Such a result, it is claimed, is avoided by reason of the agree

ment.

Upon the existence, therefore, of this or some similar agreement directly depends, as is alleged, the prosperity if not the life of each company. It must follow that an amount much more than $1,000 is involved in the maintenance of the agreement or in the right to maintain it or something like it. These facts, appearing in the record and the stipulation, show that the right involved is a right which is of the requisite pecuniary value. A reduction of the rates by only the fractional part of 1 per cent would, in the aggregate, amount to over $1,000 in a very few days. This is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction on appeal. (South Carolina v. Seymour, 153 U. S, 353, 357; 14 Sup. Ct., 871.) There is directly involved in this suit the validity and the life of this agreement, or one similar to it. Out of this agreement directly springs the ability as well as the right to maintain these rates, and each company is interested in maintaining the validity of the agreement to the same extent as all the others. As against the agreement the government represents the interests of the public, and thus the parties stand opposed to each other-the one in favor of dissolving and the other of maintaining the agreement.

Unlike the case of Gibson v. Shufeldt (122 U. S., 27; 7 Sup. Ct., 1066', and the cases therein cited in the opinion of the court delivered by Mr. Justice Gray, the defendants here are jointly interested in the question, and it is not the case of a fund amounting to more than the requisite sum which is to be paid to different parties in sums less than the jurisdictional amount.

For the reasons above stated, we think the jurisdictional fact in regard to each defendant appears plainly and necessarily from the record and the stipulation, and that the duty is thus laid upon this court to entertain the appeal. TWO QUESTIONS ARE THE APPLICATION OF THE TRUST ACT AND THE RELATION OF THE RAILWAY COМРАСТ.

Coming to the merits of the suit, there are two important questions which demand our examination. They are, first, whether the above cited act of congress (called herein the trust act) applies to and covers common carriers by railroad; and, if so, second, does the agreement set forth in the bill violate any provision of that act?

As to the first question:

The language of the act includes 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. So far as the very terms of the statute go, they apply to any contract of the nature described. A contract, therefore, that is in restraint of trade or commerce is by the strict language of the act prohibited, even though such contract is entered into between competing common carriers by railroad, and only for the purposes of thereby affecting traffic rates for the transportation of persons and property. If such an agreement restrain trade or commerce it is prohibited by the statute, unless it can be said that an agreement, no matter what its terms, relating only to transportation cannot restrain trade or commerce. We see no escape from the conclusion that if any agreement of such a nature does restrain it the agreement is condemned by this act.

It cannot be denied that those who are engaged in the transportation of persons or property from one state to another are engaged in interstate commerce