The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-04-06

transactions being independent. ana
separate.
No Motive Shown.
But is it not a reasonable inference
that the primary purpose was to get
control of these three great continental
lines for the control of rates?" Mr.. Lane
asked, but Mr.. Milburn would not con-
sent that any motive had been shown
in the purchase of Southern Pacific
stock except to get the line from Ogden
to San Francisco.
Taking that portion, il must also take
the line from New Orleans to San Fran
cisco and Portland. Moreover, the nego-
tiations for the Southern Pacific stock
had been begun long before any effort
was made to obtain Northern Pacific
stock, ANY other theory is mere
dream" he declared
IF il is a dream. it is not the dream
of this commission, but of Mr.. Harri-
man." responded Mr.. Lane, and Mr..
question whether the Union Pacific or
Southern Pacific are parallel and COM
petitive. He declared they were not.
In reply to Commissioner Clements,
Mr.. Milburn said it was his contention
that a purchase such as that made in
this case, even though it does effect
restraint of trade, is not controlled by
the antitrust act. 1t was sufficient that
there was a purchase. He would not,
however, go TO the extent Of expressing
an opinion as to what should be said
III case a monopoly was established.
Hartman Singled Out.
Mr. MiIburn complained of the course
of the commission in singing out the
Hartman interests for investigation.
and said he would be pleased to have an
inquiry into the entire subject of COM
munity interests. He would have the
Pennsylvania, the Vanderbilt, the
Northern Pacific. the Rock Island and
tho Great Northern systems inquired
into for all of these had grown up I'M
der the eyes of the commission by the
acquisition Of stock and consolidation
and all control of parallel and compet-
ing lines. He believed a general in
quiry would result in showing the bene-
fetal effects Of large concerns The
mere matter Of the size of a concern
had no terrors for him. IF he said,
"the politician would only let the report
alone for two or three years and let
this commission exercise its present
powers in calmness, believe that many
of the problems could be worked out
and solved properly"
Mr.. Milburn was about to conclude
when Commissioner Lane asked him to
give his attention to a question
Harriman's Dream.
Mr. Hartman" said the commits
sioner. STATED that but for the re-
straint of the laws he would take over
the Santa Fe and that he would get
control of the Northern Pacific. Sup
pose he had carried out this plan and
also controlled the Illinois Central, he
would thus control all the lines run
ming into Oregon and California Does
he not acknowledge that he was
checked by the restraint of the law"
Mr.. Milburn replied:
Il don't think that too much stress
should be laid on such a remark. Mr..
Hartman was not speaking from
legal point of view, but was expressing
an idea he had in his mind and which
cannot be carried into practical opera
ton except through government owner
ship--fTom which God save US. His
ambition was a mere dream
In further answer to the question, he
elaborated the views already outlined
and with an appeal to the commission
not to go too far in disturbing existing
business relations, closed the case for
Mr.. Hartman.
Case of the Government.
for the government giving his first at
tention to the contention that the Sher-
man antitrust law does not cover the
Union Pacific-SOuthern Pacific deal,
because it was a purchase. He said
that the decisions of the supreme court
afford sufficient refutation of this con-
tentiOn. He also entered upon an argu-
ment to show that it is not necessary
that roads should be parallel as well as
competing in order to render the law
applicable. He said that the principle
involved in the pending matter had
been definitely determined by the SUI
preme court in the case of hartman
vs. the Northern Securities company,
in which the court had unanimously
held that the exercise of power, wheth-
er as owner or trustee, which would
give one company control over another
to the end that competition is re-
strained, Is in cOntravention of the
Sherman act. Other decisions to the
same effect were cited and Mr.. Sever
-ance expressed the opinion that they
fully determined the point that mere
purchase can remove a transaction be-
tween railroads from the operation of
the Sherman law.
Motive Not the Question.
Mr. Severance also entered into an
argument to demonstrate that the mo-
tive of a consolidation could not be
held properly to affect a transaction;
only the effect could receive recogni-
ton under the law. He detailed the
transactions under which Senator
Clark's Salt Lake road had been
brought into the Hartman system,
saying it was through a threat of a
parallel road. He had no doubt that
the case falls within the Sherman act
If it could be shown that the Union
Pacific and Southern Pacific are COM
peting lines. He entered upon an argu-
ment to show that they do compete,
both starting at Oregon and one ter
minating at the Missouri river and the
other at the Mississippi river, and both