Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-01-09
ALL RATES THE SAME
Witness Tells of Agreement of
Pacific Railroads.
MORE HARTMAN METHODS
Commission Getting Below Surface of
His Dealings.
ROCKEFELLER'S HAND SEEN
Evidence Tending to Show Standard
Oil Company Aided in Alleged At
tempt to Prevent Competition.
ROCKEFELLER'S HAND SEEN

| c. A. Severance of St. Paul. acting for the
commission.
! The witness was asked if the Union Pa
| cific and Southern Pacific were, prior to
their consolidation. competitors for trans
continental business. He said they were.
| Mr.. Markham declared that in his opin-
ion the Union Pacific was not link in
transcontinental transportation, con-
| tended yesterday by the attorneys for Mr..
Hartman, but as long as the Portland
| gateway is open, it is a Pacific coast line
| in itself. The witness said that the Union
| Pacific and Southern Pacic lines, before the
consolidation were competitors for the Cal
| ifornia fruit trade and for passenger bust
ness also.
| Cross-Examined Witness.
Mr.. Markham was cross-examined by Mr.
| Milburn, representing the Hartman lines,
who took exception to the statement made
| by the witness that he considered the Union
| Pacific an Independent Pacific coast line.
He asked the witness if the Southern Pa
| cific, acting as an Independent line, could
| not give to the Union Pacific a large or
small amount Of eastbound traffic at Ogden.
| Il don't know whether it could or not.
There are influences at work which would
prevent it..
But the Southern Pacific. as an indie
| pendent line, might do this?'
| 1T might, and destroy ITSELF
Commissioner Lane asked the witness if
| he considered all transcontinental lines as
competitors. to the extent that the Ca
| madam Pacific Is a competitor of the South
| ern Pacific. The witness replied in the af-
| firmative
Rates Were the Same.
Commissioner Clements asked if while
| Mr.. Markham was connected with the
Illinois Central the Union Pacific and
| Southern Pacific were competing for Illinois
Central traffic, the rates were Identical by
| both lines.
The published rates were the same he
| replied.
WAS there any lessening of competition
after the consolidation p
1T was generally understood that the
competition was less.
Mr.. Markham was followed on the stand
by J. c. Stubs. traffic director of the
| Union Pacific-Southern Pacific system.
Standard Oils Hand.
The hand Of the Rockefellers and Stand
ard Oil interests was plainly shown before
the commission yesterday as aiding Edward
H Hartman in an alleged attempt to throt-
tie raiiroad-rate competition in territory
west of the Mississippi river to the Pacific
coast ~
The la test step in the perfection of, his
alleged plan to become dictator OF freight
and passenger rates In vast territory
| was, it was intimated, a secret buying of
Santa Fe stock with view to removing
that road from the field of competition.
Ripley, president Of the Santa Fe road,
| denied, claiming that competition was as
strong as 1t was before the Standard Oil
people and Hartman began buying an in
tereSt In his property. The Santa Fe'S
president, however, admitted that he feared
the Hartman invasion, despite the fact
that these fears had thus far proved
groundless.
Through Mr.. Ripley attorneys for the
government sought to show that by the
purchase of the Central Pacific and the
Southern Pacific, together with the Oregon
Railway and Navigation Company and the
Oregon Short Line, Hartman had removed
a great deal Of the competition with which
the Union Pacific formerly had to contend.
The government insisted by its questions
that the Hartman people now had control
of the main traffic gateways west Of Chi
cagO clear to the gulf on the south, and
by their combination of lines were enabled
to lessen. competition on traffic originating
as far east as Pittsburg and Cincinnati.
Did Not Know Of $1O,OOO,O 900.
Mr. Ripley was questioned by F. B. KEEL
logg, acting for the commission.
Did you know, Mr.. Ripley, that the
Union Pacific owns $40, 900, 900 of stock in
the Santa Fee"
Il did not know it until 1 saw it in the
press dispatches from New York last
week..
when did you hear of a desire on the
part of the Union Pacific people to be rep
resented In the directory OF the Santa Fer
Some time ago certain parties in New
York intimated desire to represent GER
| tain holdings Of stock In our directory. and
said that 1t would be agreeable to allow
| them two directors. provided they were not
| officers of competing lines"
why did you object to the officers Of
| competing lines?"
81 did not consider it desirable to have
| them on the board.
How much Of the stock of the Santa
Fe did they hold?''
About one-seventh one-eighth."
"Whom did they ask to have elected?'
''H. H. Rogers and Henry c. Prick.
You understood they were directors Of
| the Union Pacif1c?"
The witness said that he had no personal
knowledge whatever of the acquisition OF
Santa Fe stock by the Union Pacific.
No Rate Agreement.
HAS the Santa Fe any agreement with
either the Union or Southern Pacific for
maintaining certain rates, or is there any
pooling between them?"
'"There is no pooling and no agreement re-
garding rates.
Mr. kellogg by a series of questions
brought from the witness that the Southern
Pacific and Union Pacific were natural COM
and the Pacific coast. He asked President
Ripley If these two lines did not maintain
equal rates. and the witness replied:
81 am not prepared to say"
Commissioner Harlan asked:
"Mr. Ripley. have you any idea what
stock it was that voted for Messrs. Prick
and Rogers?"
practically all of it.
President Ripley was crosS-examined by
John D. Milburn, attorney for the Union
Pacific He asked first if Messrs. Rogers
and Prick had ever. while acting as direct
ors of the Santa Fe, discovered any desire
to injure 1t in favor Of the Union Pacific.
mot at ALL replied President Ripley
| "they are as good directors as we have"
Before the combination Of the Southern
and Union Pacific were those roads Compel
itors of the Santa Fe?' asked Commission
er Prouty.
mo more than at present"
"You said you would admit a representa-
tive of Mr.. Hartman a director, but not
an officer of the Union Pacific. What Is
the difference?"
81 did not say that" replied President
Ripley. IT said we objected to the election
as director of an officer of the Union Pa
cific as a personal representative of Mr.
Hartman, because we did not desire an Of
f1cer of another road in our directory"
Tried to Show Links.