Arizona republican., 1908-04-07
THE MERGER
 OF HARTMAN
Said Not to be a Restrain
 ing Monopoly
In the Suit to Dissolve the Alleged Com binatiOn.

Salt Lake City, April 6.-The an- swers of the defendants Tn the suit of the United States to dissolve the so- called Hartman system of railroads as being a monopoly in restraint oi trade were filed in the federal court here today. The answers make a general denial of the allegations. Besides the answer of Mir Hartman, signed by himself and Harley l.. Williams, solic- itor and counsel of Salt Lake City. an swers were filed by Senator w A. Clark, president of the Salt Lake route the Farmers Loan and Trust company of New York, H. C. Prick, the Union Pacific. the Oregon Short Line. the Oregon Railway Navigation company and the Southern Pacific companies To cover certain allegations joint an swers were also necessary. These were also filed.
 Hartman denies that he with Jacob Schiff. Otto H. Kahn, James Stillman and others, have owned or controlled a majority of the stock of Union Pa cific. He admits that he is the presi- dent and the other men were directors. Schiff and Kahn resigned in 1906 and Stillman in 1S9S
 He denies that he and the other de- fendants conspired to restrain trade among the several states and foreign countries or to restrain competition among the defendant steamship and railroad lines or to deprive the public of advantages to trade and commerce through independent competition, if any there was, or to effect a-cOnsoli- dation with the idea of monopolizing or restraining trade commerce. admit ting however that the Union Pacific acquired a majority of the capital stock of various lines and steamship systems
 He denies in each instance that the acquisition was to kill competition or monopolize trade, commerce or busi- ness.
 Admitting that the directors of the several different companies are iden tical, he denies that the Union Pacific has control, management or operation of the affiliated lines. He ayers that in the transcontinental lines of rail- roads reaching the Pacific coast south of Portland, the Union Pacific is but a link 1000 miles in lnegth. an inter- mediate carrier without any power to make rates upon such traffic; that the Southern Pacific owns and controls its lines between ogden and The coast with no power to make rates on business east of ogden: no rates could be made from the Missouri river to the coast without the joint consent of the South ern Pacific and the Union Pacific. While the Union Pacific and con stituent companies separately owned connecting lines they were operated as single system from the Missouri river to Portland, Ore. There are operated certain small steamships be- tween Portland and San Francisco yet such route via Portland was not only impracticable as a competitor of the Southern Pacific but any attempt to use it as such would greatly injure the Union Pacific because the Southern Pacific thereupon would be a preferred rival. The revenue thus lost would greatly exceed the total volume of business received over such aE inn practicable route in competition with the Southern Pacific.
 Hartman denies that the railroad line between San Francisco and Port land was inactive in competition with the ships of the Oregon Railway and company between the two points named, and he explains that such competition is impracticable. He denies that the ships operated by the Portland Asiatic Steamship company between Portland and Asiatic points in connection with the rail lines of the Union Pacific were ever in com petition with the Pacific Mail Steam ship company. He denies that any ever existed between the