The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-09-10
Union Pacific Power.

In holding that the Union Pacific was
In no condition to coerce any action by
tne Southern Pacific as to interchange
or business at Ogden
In holding that the Southern Pacific
had power TO defect all eastbound traffic
TO another line al Ogden
In holding that the Onion Pacific was
absolutely dependent upon the Southern
Pacific and also upon the voluntary ac
tion Of Its eastern connections, and that
therefore no profitable competition be-
tween It and the Southern Pacific was
possible.
In holding that instead of the situa-
ton being competitive between the two
roads. they really acted together in Sc
curing as much Of the transcontinental
traffic for each as they could get.
In holding that the Union Pacific had
no power TO compel the Southern Pa
clnc TO interchange traffic as favorable
that given TO other connections
In holding that physically and practl-
cally speaking, In view of the circuitcus-
ness OF the route OF the Southern Pacific
and of the necessary dependence Of both
the Southern Pacific and the Union Pa
sc, cinc upon volunteer connections. real
nc between the Atlantic seaboard and
Colorado and Utah common points was
not possible. on the contrary. the court
should have held that said traffic was
the subject of active competition between
said companies.
Seaboard Traffic.
In holding that the said traffic between
tho Atlantic seaboard and Colorado and
Utah common points was OF little volume
and comparatively unimportant.
The court erred in finding that the
proof does not disclose that any control
o. o; the santa Fe was secured by the In
dlvidual defendants who were the Gi
rectors Of the Union Pacific in l0s4.
In finding that whatever the motives
OF the individual defendants In purchas-
Ing the Santa Fe stock, the action was
lawful and afforded no reason for judicial
condemnation.
That the court erred in holding that
the line OF the San Pedro. Los Angeles &
Salt Lake Railroad company, as orig
inally projected and ultimately con-
structed was not actually connective
with the Union Pacific, the Southern Pa
said companies,
In holding that It was not unlawful
for the Union Pacific and its subsidiary
companies Ia combine with Tie Salt Lake
Route in the construction of the llne be-
tween Salt Lake and Los Angeles.
In holding that the agreement be-
tween the Salt Lake Route and the Ore
gon Short Line. suppressing competition
between these lines. was not Illegal.
That the court erred in finding that
there had been no impairment OF scrv-
ice as the result OF the amalGa ma tlon
Of the Southern PacAc and Union Pa
cific systems.
In holding that none of the, minor
| points charged had been deprived OF
competitive opportunities by the Hunt
ington purchase. or shown TO have suf-
fered as q result of that purchase,
General Errors.
That the court erred In holding that
! the whole proof taken together fails TO
! disclose any conspiracy to restrain In
| tcrstate or foreign commerce; in hold
} Ing that no combination or conspiracy
was entered into 70 moDopolize or at
! tempt 70 monopolizc trade or commerce
among the states or the foreign nations
or in finding that the defendant Union
Pacific company did not secure OF under
| take 20 secure control Of the Santa Fc:
that the defendant Union Pacific did not
undertake 20 control the Denver & Rio
| Grande; In including the earnings OF the
/ Union Pacific and its subsidiary compa
nies and the Southern Pacific, all earn
ings on interstate business In the de-
iermininG as TO whether the amount OF
/ the traffic as TO which competition be-
tween the Union Pacific and It's sub
sdiary companies. the Southern Pacific
( was suppressed, formed substantial
percentage OF the traffic OF said com
| panies; In excluding from consideration.
l.to ,i,.l,, - n q