The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1908-04-16
HARTMAN MAKES
DENIAL At LENGTH

SALT LAKE CITY April Sine an
swers of the defendants in the suit OF
the United States to dissolve the So
called Hartman system of railroads
as being a monopoly in restraint OF
here today. Besides the answer of e.
H. Hartman, signed by himself and
Farley l.. Williams, his solicitor and
counsel in Salt Lake City, answers are
filed by Senator w. A. Clark, president
of the Salt Lake route; the Farmers
York, H. c. t'rick, the Union Pacific,
Oregon Short Line, Oregon Railroad
and Navigation and Southern Pacific
companies. To cover certain allega-
lions of the Government joint answers
were also filed.
Hartman, in his answer, denies that
he, with Jacob Schiff. Otto H. Kahn,
James Stillman or others, has owned
or controlled a majority of the stock
of the Union Pacific. He admits that
he is president and the other men
have been directors. He denies that
he and the other defendants conspired
to- restrain trade among the several
states and foreign countries or to re-
strain competition among defendant
steamship and railroad lines, or to de-
prive the pblic of advantages of trade
and commerce through Independent
competition, if any there was, or to
effect a consolidation with the idea OF
mOnopolizing or restraining trade and
commerce, admitting, however, that
the Union Pacific acquired a majority
of the capital stock of the various lines
and steamship systems. He denies in
each instance that the acquisition OF
the stock was to kill competition or
monopolize trade, commerce or bust
ness.
Admitting that the directors of sew
eral different companies are identical,
he denies that the Union Pacific has
control in management or operation OF
the affiliated lines. He AYERS that in
the transcontinental lines of railroads
reaching the Pacific Coast south Of
Portland the Union Pacific is but a
link about 1000 miles in length-an in
termediate carrier without any power
the Southern Pacific owns and controls
| lines between Ogden and the Coast
with no power to make rates on bust
/ ness east of Ogden: that no rates
| could be made from the Missouri river
to the Coast without the joint consent
nf hn nj
Pacific; that while the Union Pacific
and its constituent companies separ-
ately owned connecting lines operated
as a single system from the Missouri
river to Portland, Or, and operated
certain small steamships between Port
land and San Francisco, yet such a
route via Portland was not only inn
practicable as a competitor of the
Southern Pacific, but any attempt to
use it as such would have greatly in
| jured the Union Pacific because the
! Southern Pacific would thereupon have
preferred the rivals of the Union Paci-
fic in routing and interchange traffic
at Ogden and the business in tonnage
and revenue thus lost would have
greatly exceeded the totai volume OF
business received over such an imprac-
ticable route in competition with the
Southern Pacific. ..
Hartman denies that the rail line
of the Southern Pacific between San
Francisco and Portland was in active
competition with the ships of the Ore
gon Railroad and Navigation Company
between the two points named, and ex-
plains that such competition was i'm
practicable He denies that ships Op-
Grated by the Portland and Asiatic
Steamship Company, between Portland
andAsiatic ports in connection with
the rail lines of the Union Pacific were
ever in competition with the Pacific
Mail Steamship Company. He denies
that any competition ever existed be-
tween the system of railroads and
steamships owned by the Union Paci-
tic Railroad Company and the South
ern Pacific, or, If any such competition
did ever exist, it was not substantial,
or that it included a large volume OF
traffic of any kind.