Los Angeles herald., 1907-05-05
Southern Pacific and
Salt Lake Deal
Cancelled
Hartman Evidently Sees
the Writing on the
Wall
Official information Reaches Inter-
state Commerce Commission That
Traffic Arrangement Is
Now at an End
BY Associated Press.

BY Associated Press
WASHINGTON May 4.-Official in
formation reached the interstate COM
merce commission today of the cancer
lation Of a traffic agreement entered
into June 1S, 1903, between the South
ern Pacific and the San Pedro, Los
Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad COM
pany
In the opinion of the commission the
abrogation Of the agreement is OF the
highest Importance. The facts con-
cerning it were developed at the recent
inquiry into the relations of the Soutn-
ern Pacific company with other corpo-
rations.
TT was the opinion of several inter
state commissioners that the agrees
me,M was in restraint OF trade ana
might subject the ohicials who en-
tered into it to prosecution under the
sherman antitrust act.
Notification OF the abrogation of the
agreement was received In letter
from r. S. Lovett of New York, gen
eral counsel for the Southern Pacinc
company. Mr.. Lovett assigned as the
the California legislature OF law
1yhich prohibits contracts restricting
con,netition. In the letter Lovett says:
"The california legislature at It's last
.assion enacted a statute designed, as
am advised, to prohibit contracts re-
stricting competition, and counsei ol
the Southern Pacific company IN tnat
.o+a ~ ond of the San Pedro Los An
reIes e. salt Lake Railroad company
sdvise that the validity of the con
tract dated June /, 1908, between tne
linton Pacific company and the san
pedro Los Angeles & Salt Lake Rail
road company, designated trafnc
agreement will be open to question
mon the taking effect of SAID act.
uPu consenuence Of such advice the
r,,nanies have entered into an agree
,oent dated April Is, 1907, abrogating,
canceling and annulling the former
aareenent AS the contract OF June
10 1a02 was introduced in evidence and
Was the subject Of discussion In the
inquiry conducted by you into the re-
lations between the southern Faciiic
comnany and other corporations II
seems proper that l snouio ihAoiih Sou
of it's cancellation
Recent Inquiry Recalled
II will be recalled that part OF the
commissions inquiry into the Harrl-
ma n lines
les In that INJURY j. Ross Clark, an
offjcia1 of the San Pedro line, and a
hrother of former United States Sena-
To-. W A. Clark, president of the San
Pedro road. admitted that he under
stood when the traffic agreement was
made between his road ana the South-
ern Pacific that for SO years on the
class of traffic mentioned in the agree
rnent the San Pedro officials could not
make a change of rate without the
consent of the Southern Pacific. Mr..
clark further said that the proposition
was not put into the agreement at the
instance of his line. The examination
then continued:
Cop,n,issioner Iane-Why did you
consent to the making of such con-
Mr.. Clark-Why, that let us into
Southern California. There is a pro-
vision in there that they can inter-
change with us on the same terms as
they interchange with the Santa Fe
company Now at that time we prob
ably had little over 100 miles of rail-
road in Southern California and that
would give us access by interchange
to 300 additional miles already con-
structed by the Southern Pacific in
operation.
lets you into Southern California.
Could you not have gotten in without
that?
Would Have Been Expensive
Mr.. Clark-In time, yes sir; at an
enormous expense. Those lines were
already constructed and in operation.
In response to further inquiries Mr..
Clark said the contract applied only
to "local traffic, that is traffic picked
up in California and laid down within
the state" -
When his attention was called to a
clause which provides that no change
should be made in the rates unless such
changes were made necessary by re-
quirement of state and national law,
and was asked by Attorney Severance
for the commission if that did not show
clearly that 1t was never the intention
that the provision should apply to traf-
fic local to the state of California, Mr..
Clark said he would not undertake to
answer this.
Mr. Clark admitted, further. that he
was unable to give any reason for the
insertion of the provision. He could
not say that the provision had been
dr~of fod axr Tr. To fY11a N NJ n