Albuquerque citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1907-1909, 1908-04-07
AFFILIATED LINES
NOT CONTROLLED
Denies That He and Others Have
the Power to Control Rates. or
His TranSCOntinentdl SyS-
TEN Is a Combination
to Restrain Trade.

salt Lake, Utah, April THE an
sWers of the defendants in the suit
of the United States TO dissolve the
sO-calle1 Hartman system of rail-
roads as being a monopoly in res
traint of trade were filed in the fed
eral court here yesterday. These an
swers make a general denial of the
allegations of the government. Be
sides the answer of F.. II. Hartman,
signed by himself and Harley l..
Williams. his solicitor and counsel in
salt Lake City. answers are filed by
former Senator w. A. Clarke, presi-
dent of the Salt Lake route, Farmers
Loan and Trust company of New
York II. 9. Frick. the Union Paci-
tic, oregon Railway and Navigation
ana southern Pacific companies. To
cover certain allegations of the gov
eminent joint answers were necessary
and these were also filed.
Doesn't Control u. T..
Mr. Hartman in his answer de-
MED that he with Jacob Schiff, Otto
II. Kahn, James Stillman or others
have owned or controlled majority
of the stock of the Union Pacific. He
admits that he is president and the
other men were directors. Schff and
Kahn resigned in 1905 and Stillman
in 1908. He admits Schiff and Kahn
We're members of the firm of Kahn,
Loeb Il Co., and that this firm
bought stocks and bonds OF the
Union Pacific and oregon Short
line, but It is denied that the COM
pany was a fiscal agent" of the
Union Pacific. He denies that he
and the other defendants conspired
70 t,-a1 hn
states and foreign countries, or to
restrain competition among defend
ant steamship and railway lines. or
to deprive the public of advantages
OF trade and commerce through in
dependent competition. If there was
any or to effect a consolidation with
the idea Of monopOlizing or restrain
ing trade and commerce: admitting,
however, that the Union Pacific ac-
quired a majority OF the capital
stock Of the various lines and steam
ship companies. He denies in each
instance that the acquisition of the
stock was to kill competition or
monopolize trade. commerce or busi-
ness.
Makes General Denial
Admitting that the directors OF
several defendant 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 Paci-
fic coast south of Portland the Union
Pacific is but a link about 1000
miles in length-as intermediate car
riers without any power to make
rates on such traffic. that the South
eru Pacific owns and controls lines
between Ogden and the coast with
no power to make rates on business
east of ogden; that no rates could he
made from the Missouri river to
the coast without the Joint consent
OF the Southern Pacific and the
Union Pacific: that while the Union
Pacific and its constituent companies
separately owned connecting lines op-
Grated as single system from the
Missouri river 70 Portland, ore, and
separately owned connecting lines op-
between Portland ana san Francis
60. yet such a route via Portland was
not only impraCticablc, as a compe-
titor OF the southern Pacific, but any
attempt TO use it as such would have
greatly injured the Union Pacific be-
cause the changing traffic is routing
ana interChanEinE traffic at ogden
and the business i'm tonnage and rev.
cnuc thus lost would have greatly ex-
ceeded the total volume Of business
received over such an impracticible
route in competition with the South
ern Pacific.
MI Hartman denies that the rail
lime NJ the Southern Pacific between
san Francisco and Portland was in
active competition with the ships Of
the oregon Railroad and Navigation
company between the two points
named and explains that such com
petition was impractlcable He denies
that ships operated by the Portland
and Atlantic steamship company, be-
tween Portland and Asiatic ports in
connection with the rail lines Of the
Union Pacific were ever i'm cOmpeti-
tiou with the Pacific Mail steamship
company He denies that any compe-
titIun ever existed between the sys-
tenn Of railroads and steamships
owned by the Union Pacific Railroad
company and the Southern Pacific,
or. it such competition did ever eX-
1T. IL vas not substantial OF that il
Included a large volume Of traffic OF