The Washington herald., 1907-05-05
ROADS IN A COMBINE
Hartman and Clark Accused
Of Restraining Trade.
ACTS MAY BE CRIMINAL
Government said to Be Planning 10
PrOsecute-Agreemen Between the
Southern Pacific and san Pedro
Road Brought Ont at Hearing.
COanseI Denies Interstate Tramc.

AtOAAA AsA1u&hA DhA a. AAEmAAh5 -
CoanseI Denies Interstate Tramc.
Information has been placed In the
hands Of the Interstate Commerce Com
mission thar certain government officials
believe justihes a criminal prosecution Of.
F. r. Hartman, OF New York, and for
mer Senator W A. Clark. the Montana
multi-millionaire, on charges of violation
Of the provisions Of the Sherman anti
trust act.
At a hearing Of the commission, held
in Los Angeles some months ago. evil
dence was brought out showing that
the Southern Pacific Railroad Company
and the San Pedro. Los Angeles and salt
Lake Railroad Company we're operating
under an agreement. made OH behalf Of
the Southern Pacific by Mr. Hartman
and Of the san Pedro by Mr.. Clark.
whereby the two lines We're to maintain
the same freight rates, tariffs. classiica-
tions, and charges for the handling of any
local business which might be made the
subject of competition between them.
The representative IF the railroads set
up the plea that local business meant
business within the State Of California.
Government officials pu; a different con
struction on the word.
Yesterday the Interstate Commerce
Commission received letter from Judge
r. S. Lovett. general counsel Of the
Southern Pacific, in which notice was
given that the traffic agreement above re-
ferred 10 had been abrogated and can
celed on April Is last The reason given
for this action was that the Southern
Pacific had been advised Of the enactment
by che California legislature OF law
designed 10 prohibit contracts restricting
competition.
Agreement Made i'm 1903.
The agreement thus aunuHed was en-
tered into by Mr. Hartman for tae South
erH Pacific and Mr Clark for the San
Pedro on June rs. 1893 Article Of the
agreement read as follows. I'm partial
consideration of said covenants and
agreements of the said Southern Pacific
Company. said San Pedro Company here
by covenants ana agrees that il VIII.
upon the execution Of this agreement
lHA-fta'il anu fiat itA AtttNF Hf atA points
its railroads the lawful freight rates.
tariffs, classifcations. and charges used
by the said Southern Pacific Company for
the handling Of any local business which
may be the subject Of competition be-
tween them.
Each party hereto mutually agrees
that after the adoption Of rates as pro-
vided by article p neither 0f them shall
change any such rates without the con-
sent OF the other unless such change
shall be made necessary In order TO meet
the rates Of any other competing COM
pany."
ia the view 0f responsible government
officials. The agreement was. in lis opera
ton, a combination in restraint OF trade
II violated not only the Sherman anti
trust. but also the anu-pooling provision
Of the act 90 regulate commerce. Sec
lion Z of the former law. which is said
10 be applicable To the HarTimsu-Cia-6e
case, provides that
Every contract in restraint 0f trade
among the several States or with foreign
nations Is hereby declared 10 be illegal
Every person who shall make any such
contract or engage in any such combina-
Aih'lt HtteLtA ifN tAtttl-r'A EAtl-l .L llll1'l--
meauor. and, on conviction thereof shall
be punished by q fine not exceeding 5000
or 10y Imprisonment not exceeding one
year OF by both said punishments. ln The
discretion of the court"
Senator'S BROTHER TestiHes.
Commissioner Franklin X. Lane pre-
sided at the Los Angeles hearing in the
Hartman case. j. Ross Clark. brother
OF ". A. Clark. was the principal wit
ness. He testified. in substance. that the
traffic agreement between the Southern
Pacific and the san Pedro applied only
10 business within the State of California.
He declared that local business IN this
instance meant business within the State
He WAS unable TO explain what the par
ties 10 the agreement had In mind when
they made the instrument say that it
should be binding for a term of ninety
years, and not changed except 10 meet
the lower rates of competing lines. or the
decree of "a court OF some lawful or valid
requirement of State OF national law
c. A. Severance. counsel for the com
mission, contended that local business
meant that originated on one line or the
other, inside OF outside OF California. and
that the reference to national law showed
conClusiVely that the agreement covered
interstate as well as intrastate traffic
While no member of the Interstate
Commerce Commission can be induced 10
say what evidence as 10 The agreement
between the Southern Pacific and the
San Pedro viii be forwarded 10 the De-
partment of Justice. with a view 10 the
individual prosecution of Mr.. Hartman
and Mr. Clark, it is known that such
action will soon he taken