The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-04-07
HARTMAN MAKES ANSWER ID SUITS Denial of Charge of Monopoly
 Is Made NO RESTRAINT OF TRADE Many Defendants Appear With Harri- man in the Joint Answer Filed in the Federal Court at Salt
 Lake City.

Salt Lake City, April 6.-The answers of the defendants in the suit of the United States to dissolve the so-called Hartman system of railroads as being q monopoly in restraint of trade were lied in the federal court here today. These answers make denial of the allegations of the government. Besides the answer of F. 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, presi- dent of the San Pedro, Los Angeles and Salt Lake railroad; the rarmers' Loan and Trust company of New York; Il. C. Prick, the Union Pacific, Oregon Short Line, Oregon Railway and Navigation company and Southern Pacific companies To cover certain allegations of the gov ernment, joint answers were also nec- essary and these were also filed.
 Denies Ownership.
 Mr. Hartman in his answer denied that he, with Jacob Schiff, Otto H. Kahn, James Stillman or others, have owned or Controlled a majority of the stock of the Union Pacific. He admits that he is pres- ident and the other men were directors He admits that Schiff and Kahn were members of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb X
 
 and bonds of the Union Pacific and Ore gon Short Line, but it is denied that the company was an agent" of the Union Pacific. He denies that he and the other defendants conspired to restrain trade among the several states and foreign countries or to restrain competition among different steamship and railroad lines or to deprive the public of advantages of trade and commerce through indepenoent combination, if any there was, or to effect consolidation with the idea of monopoliz- ing or restraining trade and commerce; admitting, however, that the nion Pa cific acquired a majority of the company stock of the various lines and steamship system. He denies in each instance that the acquisition of the stock was to kill competition or to monopolize trade, commerce CT business.
 Same Directors.
 Admitting that the directors of several different companies are identical, he de- nies that the Union Pacific has control in management or opinion of the affiliated lines. He ayers that in the trans-conti- mental lines of railroad reaching the Pa cifc coast south of Portland, the Union Pacific is but a link about 1000 miles in length-an intermediate carrier without any power to make rates upon such traf- fic: that the Southern Pacific owns and controls lines between ogden and rthe coast with no power to make rates on business east of Ogden; that no rates could be made from the Missouri river ,o the coast without the joint consent of the Southern Pacific and the Union Pacific; that while the Union Pacific and it's con stituent companies separately owned con meeting lines operated as "a single system from the Missouri river to Portland, Ore, and operated certain small steamships. be- tween Portland and San Francisco, yet, such a route via Portland was not only impractcable, as competitor of the Southern Pacific, but any attempt to use it as such would have greatly injured the Union Pacific because the Southern Fa- cfic would thereon have preferred the rivals of the Union Pacific in routing and interchange of traffic at Ogden and the business in tonnage and revenue thus lost would have greatly exceeded the total