Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-02-13

Railroad Company, received congratulatory
letters from various sources, and among
Others from the Philadelphia Produce Ex.
change and the Commercial Exchange.
do | think that any steps will be taken
to prevent the deal from being carried out?
Yes; 1 most certainly do"
"Will the Pennsylvania Railroad Com.
psny take any legal proceedings"
81 don't know anything about that; but
do not think it will be necessary for any
corporation or individual to take any action
either"
Says Pattison viii Interfere.
''Who do you think will?"
'Why, the Executive of the State, of
course. 1t happens, fortunately, that the
Governor of the State is the same Governor
who so promptly took action against the
PENNSYLVANIA Railroad in the case referred
10. He did not wait then for any indl-
vidual corporation TO take the initiative;
he acted on his own notion and he acted at
once. Governor Pattison has an envlable
reputation as an able, honest and consistent
public official, who has never vet failed IN
doing his duty, and I feel perfectly conf
dent he won't fail this time"
Mr. John q. johnson, counsel for the
Reading Railroad Company, in an inter
view this evening in reply to Mr. A. j.
CaSsatt' S statements in an afternoon paper,
SAYS:
Mr. Cassatt seems to have learned the
law upon the subject of what parallel and
competing lines may 60 through the lesson
taught his company in the two cases which
he cited. There is about as much parallel
ism between these cases and the present one
as there is between the Lehigh Valley
Railroad and the Reading Railroad. Quo
tations Of precedents which do not apply
are the devices Of lawyers Of even longer
practice than Mr. Cassatt.
Says the Cases Are Not Parallel.
''His Two cases, which he saws are in point,
are those OF the Beech Creek and of the
South Penn In the first case the Beech
Creek Railroad was being built into the
Ilear1ield coal regions for the purpose of
competing with lines belonging TO his COM
pauv. in carving bituminous coal from the
CleariielG coal regions TO the market. His
company saw that its monopoly of the
TRANSFORMATIONS which greatly protited it
and all connected with it, was in danger.
The Dauphin coanUy court found that tor
the purpose chiefly Of destroying or dis
abling the serious competition between
lis lines and the Beech Greek
road. his company had agreed to buy
a controlling interest in the latter. The de-
the Iaw ii was about to commit was TO use
an innocent third party. the Northern
Central Railway Company, as the deposi-
tory of the stock Of the Beech Creek road.
which il contracted TO buy, and for which it
agreed TO paw with its own funds The de-
vice was not new one. The Dauphin
county court found that it was illegal for the
PennSvIvania Railroad Company to destroy
the competition which it was about to
inau zurate by buying the proposed
line, and that it was not legal
for il to buy and psy for the stock
and have the title to the same held by the
Northern Central The South Penn Com
pany was similar both as to the intent, the
mode OF performance and the scheme
adoT -ed TO hide what WAS done. The Penn
sylv fnia Railroad, as we know, controls a
line Of TRANSPORTATION between Philadelphia
and Chicago, via Harrisburg and Pittsburg.
4 Familiar story Retold.
tt re South Penn Railroad Company was
Inco rporateG Ior the construction of a rail
road which, by means OF intervening and
conr Getting lines, was meant to establish
com 9eJitive line with the Pennsylvania
Railroad between Philadelphia and Chicago
via the same points The Pennsylvania
Rail road Company agreed to buya controll-
ing interest in the South Penn after some
s., ,OJ0. 900 had been spent upon its consruc-
tion, as was found by the Dauphin county
court. 80 get the road out of the way
Of the Pennsylvania Railroad The
rece iyer in this case was the
Bed ford and Bridgeport Railroad Company.
a corporation, C which, as the same court
tour "a, was utterly insolvent. The Penn |
sylvania Railroad, through its very learned |
counsel in both these cases, argued that the |
l. - n n
lne case and the Bedford and Bridge |
port Railroad Company in the other case,
which were not parallel or competing lines, |
were the real parties to the transaction. The |
Court held that the Northern Central Rail- |
way Company and the Bedford and Bridge |
port Railroad Company were not the real |
parties This decision was appealed to the |
Supreme Court, which found no error in |
what had been done in the lower court.
How They Dodge the Laws
''The law of New Jersey does not per-
nit the lease of New JERSEY railroad by q |
Pennsylvania corporation. 1t does permit |
such a lease, however, by a New Jersey |
The Port Reading Railroad |
Company is a New jersey corporation, and |
has a most undoubted right to do what it |
has done, viz, make lease of the Jersey
Central Railway.
Mr. Cassatt objects to the lease by the
Reading Railroad Company of the Lehigh |
Valley Railroad, because, as he saws.
The railroads of both companies are
The Lehigh Valley Rail-
road is certainly not parallel to the
Reading. How can it compete with it in
the delivery of Schuylkill coal to anv mar
Set" The coal regions of Pennsvlahnia are
so situated that the outlet from each basin
to the market is by means of a railroad
which cannot reach the coal of anv other
basin, or which certainly does not do so. If
.he Lehigh Valley and the Reading are par
lllel or competing lines for the supply of
coal from the same region to the various
markets of the country, then the company
which owns one cannot lease the other 1t
IS hardly necessary to say anything concern
ing fact with which every body is familiar -
Congress Asked to Interfere.
Representative Stout, of Michigan, to-
lay introduced the following resolution:
WHEREAs-The Reading, Lehigh Valley,
the Jersey Central Delaware, Lackawanna |
and Western railways operating lines in
States, and representing a nominal |
capital OF s50lOO00O0 the plant OF which
could be duplicated at one-half the sum,
have effected combination.
Resolved, That the Committee on Inter-
State Commerce be requested to investigate |
he facts OF the case, and report whether
such considerations should not be prohibited
)y national law, and whether a bureau of
transportation should not be or |
ganlzeG headed by a Cabinet officer known
Is the Secretary OF Commerce.
q pGETR AcTnp,s rraTn