The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1904-05-12

switch yards scattered all over the vast AREA.
passengers and freight to and from Ihos~ STA
ions ions and depois or suppose II became neces-
coming trains should reach i'.' common focus
oct every railroad company provide It's own
tsinin :he neeessary S rights Of way be SO enor-
nous as to amount 10 the exclusion Of all but
be accomplished the city would be cut TO
pieces with the many lines OF railroad inter
greatest agency ot commerce would become the
greatest burden.
This is what one General Assembly as early
as i>fl TO some extent at least toresaw and at
tempted TO relieve against. and We cannot De,
lieve that the Constitutional Convention In H15
Was less sppreciatIve u the conditions thea.
resent or In prospect. and hence We cannot
believe that tho convention. when 1t said that
two lines OF railroad that we've parallel OF COM
reiins should NOT be brought under one owner,
ship or management. meant that tao lines. used
exclusively ~ bringing the trains from the
several railroad ;ermini in the city or a. the
Siiys border to common terminus snonid NJ,
TIE consoida;ion ef the terminal facilities pro
Constitution was designed to preserve;
What We have sboys said is int.ndei 10 appls
charge IN the Information thst y la. Eioint.c. :
the clause Of the constitution fortlq1lhg ,,s Irs
cOnsoii iation OF railroad coTnpInies whose lli-s
are parallel or competing We hold that that
constitutional Inhibition Mas no. in!enaed r1ffa
used slcne In terminal business
PURPOSE OF STATUTE
AID To CONSTITUTION.
The purpos. o; III. statute = not only not
in coafi.ct with the purpose OF the Constitution.
but is in aid OF 1t We have betwesa OUT two
greatest cities 81 Louis and Kansas Siiy.
four OF I've railroads which, IN the seIse aboNe
mentioned are rafslle! snd competing lines
Tor tne traffic between these twO cities sup
part OF the city has a swltct. track TO its
establishment connecting II with int Met
IL NWNaN H. Al L.
sEipnents OF its products io Kansas City, the
business OF the conceEr IS Of suct magnitude
a 10 make Its patronage gn obJect of rINairy
between AL me railroad erJnpdnles reaching
thaL market But II the Me'cnsnls' Tefmina!
on tne switch at the manulart Jrer establish
thehi 70 one rdiITCad only tlst FAllT"@i mas
a piactical monopoly OF the business % that
t.uI II the whole terminal system Is open to
the SHIPPER ha may invite bids his freight
and .Ipploy the railroad that will take II al
respondent has established. and it is bound TO
Serse all railroad companies approaching 81.
the Information. psrssraph 70. the general oh
lect and purpose being 70 provide the most
uioiIs terminal facilities In -. Louis for
the SANE and all individuais and companies
doing business with said railroads. The state
has ample power to hold the respondent 20 a
faithful performance OF that pu!slic duty. To
prevent favoritisIn and to prevent exiortion.
VIC gather ir.n the Information that al
sec;ing she city rron north 10 south. from east
10 west, and b-liins IL en- the west. tnefe arr
with swiIching Traebs or spurs into their
premises. which enables the shipper to load
ard have them delivered TO any railroad that
reaches the city. more effectual means Of
letWeen parallel or competing lines could not
be devised. The destruction Of the system
would result IN compelling the shipper TO en-
connection. else cart his product to dis
neat aes part ss ,Ss e, Shsaa Si s ,a ar ST. as Is
city o. great magnitude In the extent OF Its
other business. very large number OF trunk
line railroads converge In this city.
LAWS CONSTRUCTION
or WORD PARALLEL
.. The information charges that the roads
owned by the respondent in lss5 and those
owned by the Merchants Terminal Company
were parallel or competing lines. That IL the
statement of a conclusion which depend, for Its
correctness On the facts from which IL is
drawn The words in the Constitution descrip-
tive OF the lines are parallel or competing:
the two words which II connects. as
equivalent. the ole OF the other. The law
hrure the lines OF the roads would make when
traced ON the map, as they were with the COM
tion.
are parallel. Whether they could have been
used In lSsS by their respective owners in COM
i ss that each Sad er for reSeivins and m dslrerhg
trains from the various railroads approaching
station. or trains departing from the Union
Station destined to the East.
the respondsnt company was already. In ISL
before II acquired the right TO use the Mer-
business. and It sp.cifes the lines Of railroad
and appurtenances that constituted that equip-
ment. but II docs not show that the Merchants
Terminal Company vas equipped to do a ike
from ron 'H Eas. s" 81. Louis Eiectrie Rsiiw,y vs..
Jarvis. fifteen American and English railway
In that hat case tn there re were s Two belt cit lines. Which
crCsssd and tapped all the railroads north OF
engaged in compiling with each other FOR The
1T appears that in lisa these two companies
were cutting rates. buying business and losing
hf fTiend the I two eompanies concluded to put sse
two propertie. under the same management:
10 such condition is shown in the case at
lines Of road owned and operated by the re
Mer"hants' Terminal and thence down TO the
date OF the agreement OF consolidation COM
graph. when the lines OF the Merchants Ter
minai are given the present tense only is used
Merehanis: . bridge. thence going southwariIyt M i've
crossing certain streets and blocks described bv
sag Es,b ha sree IRa Re dsTpon 4 S ,b R
course then given il in these indefinite words
thence westerly to the present Union Station
PRESENT CONDITIONS
No GUIDE TO THE PAST
Whether the Merchants Terminal Company
before the contract complained of. had hide
pendent connection with the Union Station. or
whether trains coming over the Merchants
Bridge could have been delivered in the prem
lses Of the Union Station. or trains destined for
route OF r the Merchants' Terminal indepen,i.ni
OF the appliances Of the respondent. the infor-
terminal Company had a perpetual ieasc Of
the Merchants Bridge. hut what connections 1t
ciiities ii had FOR receiving and dsiiverinr trains
on that side IL does not say. IL does not say
.aiied the Merehants' terminal was in actual
competitionwith the respondent in the handling
usent TO compete with respondent for the bust
tween the Merchants Terminal tracks and
those OF the Union station DO not justify The
the Merchants Terminal passed under the con-
The Msrchants' Terminal could no, have been
a connecting line unless !; had such connec-
i9 % snd n se"e ss S M have ss ana pS%eE 4
acquiring such connection
.hanss. Tern.in,I n comp-tins i.ns with isat
OF the respondent are not stated In ;he In
sa, snes tse az inforaaion IS aimed at ,he life
of the respondent. II must be construed contra
The facts stated In the Information DO not
Justify the conclusion therein drawn that the
Merchants Terminal was at the time Of 'he
consolidation complained OF competing line
with she lines of the respondent
HOLDS CONTRACT NOT
AGAINST PUBLIC PoLicr.
1t IS argued that the contract Of August
t. isee whereby the consolidation vas ef-
sected vas ultra wires. and that is was against
public policy. This assails the validity Of the
act NJ frfe
OF he constitutional provision above discussed