The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-04-07
FILE ANSWERS IN
RAILROAD MERGER SUIT
Continued from PAGE 1.

Contluucd from rage !.
across Nevada. The answer gives in
full the history of the controversy, the
claim that the Short Line end it's
| branch road had upon the right-ofway
and the court proceedings following
the attempt of the Salt Lake Route to
secure IT, Then the story of the agree
ment entered into between w. A. Clark
and E. H. Hartman on July 9. 1902,
| is given with a. denial that there was
anything illegal in the agreement.
portion of the denial as given in the
answer follows:
These defendants deny that they or
either of them were at any time or IN
any manner or for any reason whatever
induced to or did desist from and abandon
their proposed intention of building line
of railroad such as was described and
defined in the articles of association OF
the said San Pedro, Los Angeles. & Salt
Lake Railroad company. They deny that
the said Hartman and his associates ana
the said Oregon Short Line Railroad COM
pany on the one part, and defendant
Clark and his associates upon the other
part, then or at any time, combined ana
confederated together to suppress any
competition either actual or proposed.
They deny that the said Clark and his
associates upon the one part or the said
Hartman and his associates and the said
Oregon Short Line Railroad company
then or at any time made or entered INTO
any contract, agreement or coriolnatlon
TO In any manner maintain, continue or
extend the, or any, alleged restraint OF
trade mentioned in complainant bill, or
to maintain, continue or extend any. OF
the alleged monopoly. They deny that
the said William A. Clark. Joined IN the
alleged or any conspiracy to suppress
competition in any or all of the territory
set forth or described in the complainant $
bill, and deny that in pursuance or such
alleged or any unlawful alliance with
sasa of a ALLEGED
the said Clark entered into certain
agreement with the defendant Hartman
under date of July 3. 1907. They adrnl,
that the defendant Clark and the SAID
Hartman did make a certain agreement,
dated July 9, 1902, and they admit that a
CODY is annexed to the said complain
ants bill marked Exhibit a. These de-
PENDANTS allege and aver that there was
not at the time of the making OF saio
agreement any continuous line of railroad
extending from Salt Lake City in Utah
to San Pedro via Los Angeles They al
lege the truth to be that the only rail-
road constructed at that time was the
railroad owned by the oregon Short Line
Railroad company and its auxiliary com
pany, the Utah, Nevada & California hall-
road company, which extended southerly
from Salt Lake by direct line for dis
lance of about three hundred and twenty
four miles; that the said Short Line com
pany also owned and operated other
branch lines of railroad south OF SAT-
ing constructed and known as the Lean
ington cutoff. extending southeriy from
Salt Lake City through Stockton 10
bennington Junction for a distance OF
about two hundred miles, making In all
a constructed line of railroad and branch
lines owned and operated by the said
Short Line company, south OF salt Lake
City of about five hundred and twenty
five miles; that the SAID san fedro, Los
Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad company
at that time owned in southern California
line of railroad with branches aggre-
eating about eighty miles of constructed
road, and was engaged In securing rights
of way for the construction or It's me
of railroad and in constructing a road
thereon from Los Angeles to Riverside,
and that the amount of railroad thus un-
der construction amounted to about Sixty
miles 1t is also claimed to have located
a line for a right of way across govern
ment land extending from Caliente TO
junction with the Atchison, Topeka <
Santa Fe Railway company's line OF rall-
road for about three hundred miles, the
title of which was in dispute.
These defendants allege and aver that
the said San Pedro. Los Angeles & Salt
Lake Railroad company had not acquired
nor located its line of railroad between
said junction with the Santa Fe railroad
tracks and San BernardinO and Riverside,
! Cal. That the route from Daggett, the
| junction point with the Santa Fe rail-
| road aforesaid passed over range OF
| mountains over the CajOn pass for dis
| tance of about eighty miles which called
| for the crossing of a mountain OF steep
| grades, and which required very heavy
I expensive construction work, and ii had
/ not acquired any right of way nor made
any road from San Bernardino to River
| side Cal, nor yet between said Riverside
and the said junction of the Santa Fe
| railroad aforesaid.
| 1.-The said San Pedro Los Angeles &
| Salt Lake Railroad company had failed
/ TO secure to itself the right and title 10
| the line of right of way for a railroad, in
| GLIDING the roadbed built thereon orig
| inally by the oregon Short Line and Utah
Northern Railway company, and the right
| to the location of it's entire line of rail-
road from Caliente Southwesterly to a
| junction with the Santa Fe tracks as
aforesaid, was in dispute in the land de-
partment of the United States; and the
/ said San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake
| Railroad company was advised that its
! right to recover in said proceedings was
1 in grave doubt
! The premises and nature of the coun-
! try considered, it had become apparent to
/ the said San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt
| Lake Railroad company that for the en-
| tire distance from Caliente to junction
| with the line of railroad of the Atchison
! Topeka & Santa Fe railway there was
not then and apparently never could be
any considerable or profitable amount of
| local business, and that the line of rail-
road from Caliente northWard existed in
a country which promised much valuable
| local business between Salt Lake and Cal
/ iente: that the line of railroad owned
and then being constructed by the said
| San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Rail-
| road company in California promised a
| lucrative business locally in southern CAL
| ifornia, and that if said California line
| was connected with the lines of railroad
| extending from Calente northerly TO Salt
! Lake and to connections with railroads
| existing at Salt Lake and extending east
! wardly to the Missouri river, namely the
| Oregon Short Line and its connection, the
| Union Pacific railroad, the Denver & Rio
| Grande railroad and Its connections to the
/ Missouri river, line of railroad consti-
/ tuting new through transportation line
/ from the Missouri river through Salt Lake
/ to Los Angeles could successfully, and
| with some reasonable chance for profit
| be constructed, maintained and operated
and that the construction, maintenance
and operation OF two such lines of rail-
! road from southern California to Salt
| Lake would be Improbable and non-re-
munerative to both of such lines.
THAT upon the consideration of the cir
cumstances and conditions above recited,
! the contract and agreement of July g.
| 1902, was made, executed and entered into
and these defendants allege that the said
contract and agreement did not create any
combination, confederacy or conspiracy
with the intention of or with the effect
of suppressing competition, and was not
made with the intention of restraining
| trade and did UOt have the effect of fa-