Los Angeles herald., 1908-04-07
HARTMAN
DENIES ALL
MAGNATE FILES ANSWER TO
GOVERNMENT
ASSERTS HIS ROADS ARE CON-
PETlToRs
Union and Southern Pacific and Asso-
clated Lines Declared to Not
Constitute Monopoly,
as Alleged
BY Associated Press.

SALT LAKE CITY, April 6.-Ihe
answers of the defendants in the suit
Cf the United States to dissolve the
so-cailed Hartman system of railroads
as being a monopoly In restraint OF
trade were filed in the federal court
here today.
The answers make general denlal
of the allegations of the government.
Besides the answer of e. III. Hartman
signed by himself and Farley l.. VIII
liams. his solicitor and counsel In salt
Lake City, answers were filed by Sen
ator w. A. Clark, president OF the Salt
Lake route; the Farmers Loan and
Trust company of New York, ii. Z.
Frick. the Union Pacific, Oregon Short
Line. Oregon Railroad and Navigation
and Southern Pacific companies.
To cover certain allegations of the
government joint answers were also
ne cessary. and these were also fled
Mr. Hartman in his answers denies
that he with Jacob Schiff. Otto ri.
Kahn, James Stillman or others nave
owned or controlled majority or the
stock of the Union Pacific. He admits
that he is president and the other men
we're directors. Schiff and Kahn re-
signed in 1906 and Stillman in 1898.
bers of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.
and that this firm bought stocks and
bonds of the Union Pacific and oregon
Short Line. but it is denied that the
company was a fiscal agent" of the
Union Pacific.
Harriman's Denial
He denies that he and the other de-
PENDANTS conspired to restrain trade
among the several states and foreign
countries or to restrain competition
among defendant steamship and rail-
road lines, or to deprive the public of
advantages of trade and commerce
through independent competition. IL
anv there was or to effect a consolida-
ton with the idea of monopolizing or
restraining trade and commerce.; ad-
hitting, however, that the Union Pa
cific acquired a majority of the cap
ital stocks of the various lines ana
steamship systems. He denies in each
instance that the acquisition of the
stock was to kill competition or mo-
ropolize trade, commerce or business.
Admitting that the directors of sew
eral different 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 Pacific coast south OF
Portland, the Union Pacific is but
link about 1000 miles in length-an In
termediate carrier without any power
to make rates upon such traffic; that
the Southern Pacific owns and con-
trolls lines between Ogden and the
coast with no power to make rates on
business east of Ogden; that mo- rates
could be made from the Missouri river
to the coast without the joint consent
of the Southern Pacific and the Union
Pacific; that while the Union Pacihc
and it's constituent companies separate
ly owned connecting lines operated as
a single system from the Missouri river
to Portland Ore, and operated certain
small steamships between Portland and
San Francisco and yet such route via
Portland was not only impracticabl9,
as a competitor of the Southern Pa
cjfic, but any attempt to use 1t as such
would have greatly injured the Union
Pacific because the Southern Pacific
would thereupon preferred the rivals
of the Union Pacific In routing and
interchange traffic at Ogden and the
business in tonnage and revenue thus
lost would have greatly exceeded the
total volume of business received over
such an impracticable route In COM
petition with the Southern Pacific.
Denies Competition
Mr.. Hartman denies that the rail
line of the Southern Pacific between
San Francisco and Portland was In
active competition with the ships of
the Oregon Railway & Navigation COM
pany between the two points named,
and explains that such competition was
impracticable. He denies that ships
operated by the Portland & Asiatic
Steamship company between Portland
and Asiatic points in connection with
the rail lines o. the Union Pacific were
ever in competition with the Pacific
Mail Steamship company.
He denies that any competition ever
existed between the system of rail-
roads and steamships owned by the
Union Pacific Railroad company and
the Southern Pacific, or If any such
competition did ever exist, it was not
substantial, or that included large
volume of traffic of any kind
He admits that the Union Pacific, in
connection with the Central Pacific Is
competitor of the. Atchison, Topeka
a Santa Fe for a large volume of
traffic to and from the Pacific coast.
Denial of any conspiracy to restrain
trade is made in the answer of w. A.
Clark and the San Pedro. Los Angeles
& Salt Lake railroad to the allegations
OF the government. Numerous contracts
were admitted, but the defendants say
in explanation that 1t would have been
impossible to build the road or to Sc
cure freight traffic after it was built
without acquiring the old right of way
owned by the Oregon Short Line and
making arrangements for a share in
the through business.
-