Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1907-05-30

Such an event would have been ruin
Gus to the Southern Pacific.
The Harrinisn Side.
In the fact of this ;anger the Union
Pacific people simply accomplished.
when Huntington loosed Ills co ltrpl Of
Southern Pacific What the Coulds
would have been glad to do: they Sc
cured control Of the Southern Pacific,
thus making certain their connection
to the west. They bought the Southern
Pacific as whole, and they can we'll
argue that they bought it, not because
they wanted to make monopoly, but
to be assured of their connection from
Ogden to San Francisco.
1t is not possible to buy the Central
Pacific line. alone. The Southern Pa
cif1c, perfectly understanding that the
Central Pacific was wanted by both
the Union Pacific and Rio Grande, and
that possession of the Central Pacific
made the Southern Pacific the arbiter
in all that section, would not part with
the leverage it thus held. There was
nothing for 1t but to buy the entire
Southern Pacific system; and this
Hartman succeeded in doing. He
bought it outright, paying money for
the holdings of the Huntington estate.
There was no legal conspiracy about
it. Neither did it represent the aspect
of one transcontinental road buying
another, for the Union Pacific was in
no sense a transcontinental road. It
wanted connection, and in order to
get that connection was forced to buy
great deal more.
This is the Union Pacific argument.
Now let it be recalled that in the
Northern Securities case the supreme
court divided. five to four, on the ques-
ton of whether there had been any
violation of the Sherman law when
| the Northern Securities effected an ex-
change of shares with two transcon-
| tinental and connecting roads which
came into its system; let it be remem
bered that three opinions were written
in that case and that no five members
Of the court were in full agreement as
| to the construction of the law;-and
it may be understood how revolution
airy would be a decision if it should
not be secured against the Hartman
system, that one railroad much buy the
stocks Of another road.
If the old Union Pacific was "par-
allel and competing" road, as against
the old Southern Pacific, then, it is
urged, any road may be held to be par
/
other road. The scientific students of
the railroad problem. indeed, now rec
| ognize that in the largest sense all
railroads are competitors. For any
road is liable to become a link in a
| through route that will compete with
a through route of which any other
road may be a part. And the law not
such through routes, but imposes upon
the commission the duty of establish
ing such routes and fixing the rates
and divisions over them,- when the
roads themselves decline to do so.
Decision Would Be Disastrous.
If the Union Pacific system today is
i illegal and If a court decision is to be
i secured which shall destroy it, then
that decision, it is claimed. will have TO
be broad enough to compel every otn-
4 er road to dispose of it's stock holdings
IN connecting or possibly competing
j lines.
u 1t is not possible to determine what
proportion Of railroad securities is thus
held by railroad companies, but it is
certain that the proportion is very
i large. 1t has been estimated at half
the total of stocks. and an estimate
of one-third has been considered very
reasonable.
j The question here is not, then.
: whether the Hartman system is a
good thing; whether it in fact has
become great monopoly; whether
such MONOPOLY is good or bad. 1t is
a question of the ultimate effects of a
court decision that would not only
force the Union Pacific to dispose of
its Southern Pacific holdings, but also
would compel the other railroad COM
panies of the country to dispose of
their holdings. 1t is conceded that
the development and unification OF
great systems has brought improved
l.service and traffic conditions. Is it de.
sirable to return to condition in
which. as forty years ago. railroa DIS
shall be short lines: sometimes making
convenient connections and sometimes
/ failing to make them? That is the
larger question which lies back of the
Hartman case The effect upon Sc
curities' values need not be suggested
1t is apparent that in many cases il
| would be disastrous
This summary of the Significance OF
the Hartman problem it may be vel
to state. Is not the argument of any
special attorney for Mr. Hartman. II
Is suggestion of the view which has
been receiving serious consideration
| by the President and the members OF
the interstate commerce commission
These men have no affection for Har-
riman. They know more intimately
imam perhaps anybody else the dangers
ard the wrongs Of the Hartman meth
DDS of manipulation. But thew are also
4 looking forward to the possibility that
4 the remedy might prove worse than the
4 disease
4 MesSrs. kellogg and Severance, spe.
fetal attorneys for the interstate com
nerce commission. found that Harri-
Ainan had violated the Sherman law II