The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-01-09
RIPLEY TESTlFIES.
Tells of Harriman's Holdings in Santa
Fe-COmpetitive Lines.

Chicago, Jan. 9.-The inquiry of the
interstate commerce commission into
the management and methods of the
Hartman railroads begun in New
York was resumed here Tuesday.
The commission was occupied most
of the day with evidence relating to
rates on cattle from Texas points, and
it was not until late in the afternoon
that the Hartman lines were brought
before the board. Only one witness
was examined, President Ripley of the
Santa F'e railroad. Mr. Ripley's testi-
mony did not bring out any startling
information. He declared he did not
know until he had read it last week in
the papers that the Union Pacific was
the holder of nearly $10,000,000 of
Santa Fe stock. He asserted that
when approached by representatives
of this stock for the right to name
members of the Santa Fe directory he
refused to consider the proposition
until it was distinctly understood the
directors to be named were not Of
ficers of the Union Pacific or any other
line competitive with the Santa Fe.
The directors named were H H.
Rogers and Henry c. Prick, both of
whom were directors of the Union Pa
cific at the time of their election to
the Santa Fe directorate. President
Ripley testified that their connection
with the Union Pacific had in no way
impaired their usefulness to the Santa
Fc. President Ripley was examined
and cross examined at considera BILE
length as to whether the Union Pacific
of each other and of the Santa Flo.
The substance of his testimony in this
respect was that while competitors in
some things they were not so on all
classes of traffic nor from all parts of
the country.
Commissioner Harlan askedI
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 exam
ined by John D. Milburn, attorney for
the Union Pacific. He asked first if
Messrs. Rogers and Frick had ever,
while acting as directors of the Santa
Fe, discovered any desire to injure it
in favor of the Union Pacific. mot at
ALL" replied President Ripley. They
are as good directors as we have"
Before the combine of Southern
and Union Pacific We're those roads
competitors of the Santa Fe?"
mo more than at present"
You said you would admit a rep
resentative of Mr.. Hartman as a di-
rector, but not an officer of the Union
Pacific. What is the difference?,'
Il did not say that" replied Presi-
dent Ripley. 81 said we objected to
the election as director, of an officer
of the Union Pacific as a personal rep
resentative of Mr.. Hartman because
we did not desire an officer of another
road in our directory
Mr. Milburn asked number of
questions intended to show that the
Union Pacific and the Southern Pacific
systems were links in a railroad chain
and not essentially active competitors
their entire length
On redirect examination Mr.. KEEL
logg asked:
WAS the only reason why you pre-
ferred Messrs. Rogers and Prick as
directors, instead of Mr.. Hartman.
because they were not actively inter
ested in the management of the Union
Pacific?"
They were not officers of any other
road but simply represented certain
holdings of stock
The examination of President Rip
ey concluded with a series of ques-
lions put alternately by Attorneys KEEL
ogg and Milburn regarding through
traffic to the Pacific coast, Mr.. Kellogg
desiring to show that the Santa Fe,
he Southern Pacific and the Union
Pacific are competitors and Mr.. Mil
burn to show the reverse.
At the conclusion of the testimony
Of President Ripley the hearing was
adjourned until Tuesday morning at
10 O'Clock.