Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1911-06-27
BIG R,.R. MERGER
DECLARED LEGAL
FEDERAL COURT UPHOLDS UNION
OF SOUTHERN AND UNION
PACIFIC.
JUDGE HOOK FILES DISSENT
Hartman Deal Not Found an UnlaW-
fui Restraint Of Trade-Will
Appeal to the Supreme
Court.


railroads is legal according to an opin-
ion handed down by the United States
circuit court of the Eighth district.
Judge Hook filed dissenting opin-
ion in which he expressed the belief
that the governments petition was
we'll founded and should have been
granted.
The bill charged conspiracy and the
formation Of combination in viola
ton OF the Sherman antitrust act,
passed by congress to protect trade
and commerce against unlawful mo-
nopolies. The defendants named in
the case were the Union Pacific, Ore
gon Short Line, Southern Pacific, Ore
gOn Railroad and Navigation company,
San Pedro, Los Angeles and Salt Lake
company, Atchison, Topeka and Santa
Fe, Northern Pacific, Great Northern
railway, the Farmers Loan and Trust
company, Edward H. Hartman, Jacob
H. Schin. Otto H. Kahn, James Still
man, Henry H. Rogers, Henry c. Frick
and William A. Clark.
The specific allegation of the govern
ment, was that the defendant named
were engaged in furthering a con-
spiracy the purpose of which was to de-
stroy railroad competition through that
part Of the United States lying west of
Kansas City, by welding into one vast
cooperative organization all Of the
companies specified.
Tho government alleged that, with
the exception of the Great Northern
and Northern Pacific systems, which
controlled the Chicago, Burlington &
Quincy, which the Hartman syndicate
had failed to secure control of, that
there remained practically no competi.
tion to keep the railroad traffic of the
whole western half of the United
States from passing into the control
Of the Hartman merger.
The Hartman plan, according to the
government, was as follows:
With such men as Jacob H. Schiff,
Otto H. Kahn. James Stillwell, H. H.
as his lieutenants, he is alleged to have
manipulated the purchase of 100000
shares Of stock in the Southern Pa
cif1c and to have delivered them to the
Union Pacific. This voting control was
used to elect Union Pacific directors to
similar positions on the Southern Pa
cif1c. The late E. H. Hartman, who
was the originator and prime mover in
the consolidation, according to the gov
eminent, was made chairman of the
committee of the Southern
Pacific and later was elected president
of the road. The full details of the
were completed and the Nor
thern Securities company was organ
lied as holding corporation and not
only took over the stock of both the
Union and Southern Pacific, but &C
Quired control of every road of any
prominence operating tracks to the Pa
cific coast.
SUIT was brought by the government,
under the antitrust law and the Nor
thern Securities company was dissOlv-
ed. Sinca then the government has
been occupied in an attempt to pre-
vent the Joint operations Of parallel or
lines. The common
directorate Of the various railroads
made this, it 10 alleged, comparative
ly easy matter.
Since the suit was! died Mr.. Harri-
man and Mr.. Rogers have died, Judge
R. 8. Lovett, successor Of Mr.. Harri-
man in the railroad system was by
made defendant. At
torney General Bonaparte and Assist
ant Attorney General Purdy retired
from Office while the suit was pending.
Hearings were held in many cities OF
the country. ...-.
Arguments were made in the case
before Judge Sanbcrn, Hook, Adams
and Van Devanter, now "a member of
the United States supreme court. Oct.
IS, 1910, in st. Paul. c. A. Severance
and Frank B. Kellogg argued for the
government. Judge P. F. Dunno of Cal
ifornia spoke for the Southern Paci-
fic, former Senator John c. Spooner
for Henry C. Frick, II. H.
LOOMS of Omaha, for hte Union Paci-
fic and David T. Watson of Pittsburg
submitted special brief and argued
for all of the defendants. The judges
of the Eighth judicial circuit of the
U. S. circuit court have had the case
under advisement since the arguments.
The suit was tried in the circuit
court under the expedition act Of con-
gress. Any appeal will be made direct
ly to the United States supreme court.