The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-07-15
TO CONSIDER HARTMAN CASE
PROPOSED CONFERENCE or AD-
MINISTRATION OFFICERS
To Decide whether civil Actiens h ne
Brought 70 Dissolve the Alleged Illegal
Mersers-CennictinE Views as 20
whether Government would win.

reason 10 believe that another important
conference will be held by Administration
officials in the near future to decide whether
civil action shall be brought in the Federal
courts to dissolve the alleged illegal mergers
Of railroad property cited at length in the
report Of the Interstate Commerce Com
mission on the Hartman case. Whether
this conference will take place At Oyster
Bay or the meeting shall be deferred until
President Roosevelt returns to Washing
ton in the autumn has not been deter
mined. The Interstate Commerce Com
mission, which acted as a publicity agent
in the case, has passed Of to the Attorney
General all the evidence it collected during
the progress of its inquiry into the conduct
and management Of the railroads that
comprise the Hartman consolidation.
Doubt is expressed by certain officials
and this doubt is said to be shared by the
President-that the Government would
yin in a proceeding having for its purpose
the dissolution of the agreement by which
the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific
roads are operated under a common man.
agement. While the Interstate Commerce
Commission declares that there Is no actual
competition between the Union Pacific
and the Southern Pacific, il tool occasion
to say in passing that IL had been no part
ofthe Hartman policy to permit the proper
ties which were brought under the Union
Pacific control TO degenerate and decline;
adding that large sums have been gener-
ously expended In the carrying on OF engi-
ueering works and betterments which make
for the improvement Of the service and the
ornament value OF the property"
The supreme Court OF the United States
orlered a dissolution Of the Northern Sc
c~lrities Company, the holding concern OF
ne Hill merger. by a vote of S TO 4. Asso-
ciate Justice Brewer conclrred ia this de-
cision. In a brief statement OF his views
he declared that in some respects the rea-
IONS given for the judgment Of the court
could not he sustained. He took the
position. in substance, that a combination
that was wholesome in its ef even II it
restrained trade. was not a v~iolstor of the
law. II would have to be shown that the
- nbination was an unrea scnsble restraint
u Interstate trade. Justice Brewer said:
instead Of holding that the antitrust act
included all contrscts. reasonable or unreason-
ea'na .hn,,,d nv. Ran DC, IN. aoa,,.O,s
there pressnted wers unreasonsbls restrsints
Of interstate trade. and as such within the
scope Of the act. That act. as appears from
its title. was ievened at only unlawful re-
strsints ana monopohes. CONGRESS did not
in'enu . resca anu ues.oy .nese MINOR con-
~. Io,s comr.a Of dscssions at commor las
hsd sssymsd wer. ressonabls and ourbt 70
be upheld. The purpose rather was to place
a statutory prohibition. with prescribed
penalties and remedies. upon those contracts
which we're In direce snt Oh trade' IN
"asonsoie ana ssNnspuo"o p0hos'
furtner along In MS statement Oh VIEWS
Justice Brewer said:
Freedom Of action In these respects 10
among the i~nalienabie rights OF every citizen.
leappIyIns tnls tnousnn 20 .ns presen. oase,
sppeaie. ,hs' IT, ." ~. CO. Wnnws
psi,rooS Camn.nw n. Gould not Nv snv .c,
ICo,gr.ss n. d.nr;ved of the rtrht az invsst-
ing his surplus means in the purchase OF
stock OF the Northern Pacific Railroad Com
panv, although such pu rchase might tend to
vest In him through tnat ownership q control
"'e' DOM conpahies
some ofnciais IN among
I en- members Oh the interststeO mmerce
'ommission-are OF opinion tnat the oon-
tract or agreement UNDER wnicn the Union
racine ano Tue oou'nofh rao"o arr opeF-
ated could not be SHOWN TO De an unrea-
s'nabie restraint OF interstate trade' Inc
same thlng Is practicahy true. Iney say
nl other mergers engineered Dy hartman
lhey regard the case aeaihs. hir. hartman
As weak IN many important particulars
ana argue that IL would DO vr'sky propo-
SItloh 10 take u INTO court
IN the other nand there are tnoso IN aa-
,horty VINO peneve tnat mr. nsrrunshs
management OF ms ranroao ProPe1.,es mas
peen oanetui IN is eneceS upon mt~s1ate
uaoe, mas ei,mlns,eu co"pet'.ion no un-
iesSonaoiy AnecSeo 1raoe anu 'nas !. ~ inc
uuty OF the oovernmen. 70 lhs.i.u.e pro
ceenings 10 oreah up 'no ssIies oi 0o"on@
IONS tnat hartman mas %eoeoo.
"nen uono1a, oonspaf.o oone'
70 'aKe up the matter ~.n view 70 sc.,on
ne VIII De iurnisnTu Win IWo oonNo.,hs
opinions ana ne VIII nnu Lhein Ia inc inter
etate COMMISSION IL no goes 10