New-York tribune., 1908-08-01
N. Il. DEMURRER FILED
ANSWER TO GOVERNMENT.
asks Dismissal of Boston s Maine
Merger Suit.

legal phraseology could make it and offering
objection both to the eorm and substance of
the petition the answer filed to-day in the
United States Circuit Court here by the New
York New Haven & Hartford Railroad Com
nanv as defendant in the action brought against
il By the United States government AS filed.
,be demurrer is in three parts in the first of
which the New York New Haven & Hartford
Railroad Company appears a corporation in
three states In the second part the New Haven
road demurs as having formerly been the Con-
solidated Railway Company, a Connecticut
poration. The third part embraces the de-
rnurrer Of the Providence Securities Company.
Ire document closes with petition that judg-
rnent Of the court be given the defendant wher
ever il shall be compelled TO make any further
answer TO the petition and prays that it be
dismissed. with its costs and charges in this
behalf most wrongfuily sustained
The main contention in each part of the de-
rrurrer and all three isarts are practically iden-
tical IN many specifications, is that the petit
ton is uncertain in its statements concerning
alleged violations OF the interstate commerce
ART This uncertainty is alleged to be shown
:, that. while the petition declares that the
holding Of the stock Of the Boston & Maine Rail
road by the New Haven road and the posi-
bi+v Of unified management" is a restraint
Of +-a5e in general. and of interstate COM
-nerce in particular. it fails TO show 10 what ex-
tent there exists competition between the re-
snertfre railroad systems and to what extent
/. ..rn;f5e6 or cooperative management g these
systems would create advantages to the public
and an encouragement and increase TO inter
state trade
RAILROADS ARE NOT PARALLEL
Il is pointed out that the New Haven road
and the Boston & Maine road are, in the MAN,
not parallel the petition AYERS, but are
.,s,-e+eros and networks OF railroads Operating
IN distinct fields" and that they compete with
each other only at a few stations. at the most
,rnror,ant of which equally or more effective
competition exists by the Boston & Albany
T2sfraa6 or bv water" This main contention
appears first in the demurrer Of the New Haven
as a tri-state corporation In another form II
Is presented in that part of the demurrer where
the New Haven appears as formerly the Con-
solidated Railway Company. This part has es-
pecially 70 do with the alleged consolidation of
electric railways. The demurrer says that the
electric railways described in the governments
petition when operating as networks of inter
communication in the streets and highways Of
cities and villages and the suburbs thereof, are
engaged in a kind Of business substantially diff
ferent from that OF interstate steam railroads,
ard that most at any rate. Of the electric rail-
wavs described are not engaged in adapted
fer interstate commerce except as auxiliaries
OF interstate railroad systems, and except as
they transport passengers or goods to and from
connections with such railroads. and that the
ownership or control by the New Haven road
OF most or all Of such electric railways will
enable il 10 encourage, promote and increase
trade in general, including interstate trade, by
making such service more efficient than il
would be with divided ownership Of the steam
roads and electric railways
RESTRAINT OF TRADE DENIED.
The uncertainty alleged with reference TO the
petition IS said TO appear in this connection, as
Il th5-case OF the steam railroads, in that the
defendant is charged with a combination in re-
straint of trade. while it does not appear, "oT
The other hand, whether the petitioner intends
&c aIege that the restraint OF trade described
exceeds in extent or amount. upon weighing all
the effects thereof, the advantages 10 the COM
munity resulting from the ownership or con-
tro described. CT even the direct encourage
rnent and promotion OF interstate trade so
caused or be caused
Pursuing this point the defendant, in this
part IF the demurrer, says that il appears from
TIE allegations Of the governments petition that
some OF the electric railways referred to have
been constructed by the defendant. though what
electric railways have been 50 constructed, it is
alleged, are not stated and it is asserted that |
The defendant cannot discover whether the peti-
iicner intends 70 charge that the alleged re-
OF trsds Is OF the nature of a suppress
sion Of competition by others with the defend
ant or that the ownership and control of cleo |
iric ra:'ways capable Of competing with the |
defendants steam railroads is in itself viola
ton Of the interstate commerce act.
The sections Of the petition referring to the |
Providence Securities Company are the subject /
Of general demurrer similar To that offered /
by tIse Nau Haven Company 70 other declara- /
tons Of the petition.
PETITION CALLED NULTIFARIOUS.
ASIDE from the principal representations Of the |
demurrer. tnc general claim Is offered that the /
governments petition does not make out case
such as should entitle the petitioner to the re-
llef prayed for against the defendant The /
petition also is referred 70 as 'nuitifarious. and
as embracing matters which have no relation
70 each other and which cannot BE- properly |
embraced in one suit" an3 il is stated that 1t
does not contain complete. frank. direct or
positive statement Of material facts
"Reuugnant ard inconsistent and contain
Ing material allegations which contradict one
another" are also declarations maze with ref
e-ence to the petition. and all that part Of it
which relates in any way to the Boston &
Maine Railroad OF 10 any connection Of the de-
feHdan, herewith" is specified subject of
demurrer
The demurrer ,vas hled ny Henry w Beals.
q This city. acting. it is understood. in connec-
ucn with regular counsel for tke New Haven
road
i i understood that an answer TO the gov
elllItient's retitioa wiil be fled by the Boston
Maine Railroad within fev days The
Boston < Maine road was mentioned as de-
-1~z