The White Pine news. [volume] (Ely, Nev.) 1906-1910, 1908-04-10
ANSWERS MADE
BY RAILROADS
Marks Opening Of Action
in Cases in Utah--Sev-
eraI Months Before
End OF PreIiminarieS

SALT LAKE. April ANSWERS
were filed yesterday in the United
States federal court by six of the
defendants in the suit in equity
brought by the government to dis
solve the alleged merger which the
government contends exists between
the Union Pacific, the Southern Pa
cific, the Oregon Short Line, the Ore
gon Railroad & Navigation company,
the Atchison. Topeka & Santa Fe
railroad, the San Pedro, Los Angeles
& Salt Lake railroad, the Great
Northern and the Northern Pacific.
The answers filed yesterday were
those of the Union Pacific, the Ore
gon Short Line and the Oregon Rail-
road & Navigation company, w. A.
Clark and the San Pedro, Los An
geles & Salt Lake railway, the South
ern Pacific railroad, the Farmers
Loan e. Trust company, Henry c.
Prick and E. II. Hartman.
Each of the answers filed contains
a general denial to the charge of par
ticipation in any alleged merger or
conspiracy for the constraint of COM
petition and each declares that each
of the railroads is operated as an
individual corporation, for its indi-
yidual profit, and not as part OF
a merger. The facts in the matters
charged are recited at length in the
answers filed and the reasons that
the defendants give whereby the
cases should be dismissed are set
forth in detail.
OF those charged with the partici-
patton in the merger, six filed their
answers yesterday; the Great North
ern and Northern Pacific defaulted,
the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
railroad. II. II. Rogers, James Still
man and Otto II. Kahn secured an
extension of 80 days in which to file
their answers, and Jacob l.. Schin,
who is in Europe, has not been served
with a summons.
The government now has 80 days
in which to file replications to the an
swer, after which the railroads will
have another turn TO answer the re-
plications. The actual taking of tes-
timony in the big merger suit will
probably not begin before several
months.
One of the charges the government
has made in the complaint hied
against the railroads is that when
W. A. Clark was constructing the
Salt Lake Route through Nevada,
Hartman, Schiff. Kahn, Stillman,
the Union Pacific and the Oregon
Short Line, for the sole purpose or
restraining trade and commerce
among the states and with foreign
nations and monopolizing same and
of preventing competition between
said railroads in the process of con-
struction for the purpose
of harrassing and injuring the said
railroad company (the Salt Lake
Route) and preventing the acquisi-
ton of the necessary right of way
for the same, brought various suits
In the courts: put large gangs of men
at work TO interfere with and pre-
vent the construction of the said
lines; threatened said Clark and his
associates that If said line was COM
pleted the same would be paralleled
by the Oregon Short Line. its value
would be destroyed, and its ability to
secure business or operate at a profit
would be taken away, which said
threats, litigation and other inter-
ference were cOHtinueu ioi a PNi'ou
of several months"
Mr.. Clark and the Salt Lake Route
in the joint and separate answers
filed yesterday deny this allegation.
They declare that the truth was that
about April /, 1901, controversy did
arise between the Salt Lake Route,
the Oregon Short Line and subsi-
diary road. the Utah, California &
Nevada The trouble was with res
pect to the conflicting rights 10 the
right-of-way across Nevada. The
answer gives in full the history of
the controversy, the claim that the
Short Line and its branch road had
upon the right-of way and the court
proceedings following the attempt of
the Salt Lake Route to secure it.
entered into between w. A. Clark
and f. II. Hartman on July 3, 1902,
is given with a denial that there was