Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1910-02-17
RAILROAD NEWS
WAS No COMPETITION.
D. q. Stubbs and T.. j. Spencer Give
Testimony at Merger ucarlnp

Testimony at Merger Hearing.
New York. Feb. le.-J. c. StuIbbs
general traffic director, and E. ]. Spcn-
Ger, eastern general freight manager for
tne Hartman lines. testified today that
tnero was no real competition between
tho Southern and Union Pacific rail
roads prior to their amalgamatlon In
1901 by the late e. H. Hartman.
The United States government Is
SUNG FOR dissolution of the Hartman
mcrgcr on grounds that the roads arr
competing lines, barred by fedora,
statute from uniting TO eliminate com
petition.
In support OF his contention that two
lines could serve the same terminals
and not compete for business. Mr.
Stubbs cited the traffic over the "Shas-
Ia route" (Southem Pacl1c) and the
oregon Transportation company
water route, between San Francisco
and Portland. Tho steamship service,
nc said. was better than the railroad
service except that 1t was not daily,
and the railroad In its growth took
nothing from the steamship line but
originated now business. Therefore the
two lines did not compete, he said.
''We made an effort to get some of
this business" said Mr. Stubbs. but
we garo 1t up and quit. and that was
before the merger"
Mr.. Spencer testified that the South
ern Pacific never had been a serious
factor IN the coaSt-to- coast trade 1t
was the volume Of business originating
In the south and southeast, he said, thar
made the Sunset route" (Southern Pa
cific) a factor In California. The busi-
ness OF tho Southern Paciflc between
the Atlantic seaboard and Portland.
Or. for 1900. he said. was only l6 OF
per cent of the company's total. the
Colorado-Utah business only SO of
per cent. and the Asiatic business OF
the company over the same route only
81 of / per cent.
c. A. Severance, for the government.
offered formal objection to these fig-
ures when he got tho witness to admit
that they were supplied to him by ON
auditor and that witness could not
swear personally to their accuracy.
Mr., Stubbs compared figures showing
the business of several Pacific coast
lines prior to the merger AS an ex-
ample, he stated that in 1901 the ton
mage OF the Oregon Transportation
company, the water route between San
Francisco and Portland. was 1892 tons,
with a revenue of $217. 900, and that OF
the Southern Pacific between the some
points was 2,156 tons, with $4,000 rev.
enue. In my opinion this was nom
Edwin Hawley's name was brought
into the testimony when Stubbs de-
clared that In his opinion there was no
real competition between the Union and
the Southern Pacific gulf routes TO
points In Colorado and Utah. Atty
Severance for the government called
Mr.. Stubbs' attention to the fact that
Mr.. Hawley had declared when O Wit
ness that the Colorado and Utah bust
ness was as eagerly sought by the
Southern Pacific as the Union Pacific
"Mr. Hawley IL n competent man, but
don't think he understood what tho
term competition means II he had
thought a moment he would not have
answered that way" said Mr.. Stubbs
Reverting to the PortlandSan Fran
cisco traffic, Mr.. Stubbs said the one
time passenger rate war was foolish
and inexcusable except as an adver-
tisement for the Shasta route
I'VE have made all the business we
have" the witness continued I'VE
haven't taken trade from anyone. We
have created tho business, The boats
have as much trade as they ever had
We have spent lot of money adver-
tislng the Shasta route-$100. 900 in one
year. We seek to create now business"
do you know another place in the
United States where there is similar
situation and no competition between
boats and railroad Enes?"
Yes; there Is no competition with
our steamship line to New Orleans"
replied Mr. Stubbs