The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-06-25
No Violation Of Anti
Trust Law t,y Harri-
man Roads.
FIGHT rs LOST
BY GOVERNMENT
Department of Justice Fails Ut
terly in Attempt to Show That
There Was Conspiracy in
Combine of Southern Pa
cihc and Union Pa
cihc Lines.

ST. Louis. June 24.--The governments
petition to enjoin the Union Pacific
Railroad Company from continuing TO
control the Southern Pacific Railroad
Company was to-day dismissed by the
United States Circuit Court of the
eighth district Judge Elmer B.
Adams wrote the majority opinion
which was concurred in By Judge San
born and Former Judge. now Supreme
Court Justice, Van Devanters Judge
William c. Hook wrote dissenting
opinion
The decree was entered at Salt La Ike
City. where the suit was fled in Feb
ruary, 1905, and the opinions were
handed down in st. Paul, Salt Lake
City and here.
Judge Adams found that the railroad
merger. engineered by the late Ed
ward II. Hartman and his associates
In 1901. and subsequently did not
amount TO a direct and substantial re-
straint OF trade. interstate, or inter
national.
According to the opinion the only
question was this:
Was the Union Pacific Company. ex-
tending only from Omaha End Kansas
City on the East to Ogden on the West
a competing line prior 20 1901 for
transcontinental business with the
extended from New York on the East
over sea to New Orleans and
thence by rail to San Francisco anc
Portland on the west?"
While the Union Pac nc was err
tirely dependent upon the Southern
Pacific for its connection westwa.n.
the Southern Pacific was not NJ all
dependent upon the Union Pacific for
its connection eastward" read the ma ].
jorlty opinion.
"Our conclusion continued the
opinion, rs that all tn. facts of this
case considered in their natural, rea-
sonable and practical aspect and given
their appropriate relative Specification
do not make the Union Pacific sub
stantial competitor for transcontinentaI
business with the Southern Pacific in
or prior to the year 1901.
we. therefore. pass TO consider
alton of some less important matters
relied upon BY the government TO es-
tablish the destruction of competition
between these companies
No Restraint OF Commerce.
Certainly the uecire TO appropriate
the trihing business done by the
Southern Pacific on the minor lines or
to suppress a competition in ira ffic
which was in the aggregate of such
small proportions could not have been
volved in the purchase of the Hunt
ihgton stock. II did not amount to a
direct and substantial restraint of
either interstate or international COM
merce. This is not sufficient 10 bring
il within the condemnati ton of the anti
trust law.
This concludes consideration of the
effect the transaction chiefly relied
upon by the government in this ca Sc.
luf IA fe da1 ~
by the Union Pacific of q controlling
interest in the stock of the Northern
Pacific Company was also violatiye Of
the antitrust law.
Without dwelling upon the rea-
son fo.F purchase OF this stock. dis
closed in the preceding statement of
facts, IL is sufficient TO say that IL any
controlling interest was thereby ac-
quired. it was lost some time before
this suit was instituted. and that none
of that stock Is held by or for the
Union Pacific Company
AS there Is no showing OF any like
ambitious project in this respect for
the future we fail to discover any op-
portunlty or reason for the injunctive
relief on this account"
History of Case.
The governments suit in equity
against the Southern Pacific Railroad
Company and the Union Pacific Rail-
road Company. to enjoin the continued
control of the former by hte latter.
was filed in Salt Lake City. Utah.
February 2, Sos
The bill charged conspiracy and the
formation of a combination in viola :
t!on of the Sherman antitrust act,
passed by Congress to protect trade
and, commerce against unlawful mo-
nopolies.
/ The defendants named in the cas-
We're the Union Pacific. Oregon Short
Line. Southern Pacific. Oregon Rail-
road and Navigation Company San
Pedro. Los Angeles and Salt Lake Co..
Atchison. Topeka and Santa Fee, North
ern Pacific, Great Northern Railway.
The Farmers Loan and Trust Com
r1ny. Edward II. Hartman, Jacob II.
Schii. Otto II. Kahn, James Stillman.
Henry II. Rogers, Henry C. Frick and
William a. Clark.
The. governments petition was sign
ed by Attorney General Bonaparte and
his special assistants. 1t sets forth
in detail the agreements by which the
defendants at various times since 1901
were alleged 10 have obtained for
themselves and others the manage
nent and control of the various defen-
dnnt roads their branches and stea M
ship lines and TO have operated them
ever since in restraint of commerce.
Since the suit was filed, Mr.. Harri-
man and Mr.. Rogers have died, Judge
5R: S Lovett, successor OF Mr.. HART
man In the railroad system. was by
.stipula ton made defendant; Attor-
ney- General Bonaparle and Assistant
Attorney General Purdy retired from
Office while the suit was pending!
Hearings were held In many cities Of
the country. H n
sis Arguments were made in tho % co
before Judges Sanborn, Hook. Adams
and Van pcS an ter, on Oetober,15, 1910,
: in st: Paul. c. A. Severance and Frank
B! Kelloggsargued for the government;
1SY CONTINUED on Second Page.) II7l7,T-