Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-06-24
Points in the Opinion.


ard Portland on the westo
Points in the Opinion.
While the Union Pacific was entirely
dependent upon the Southern Pacific for
its connection westward. the Southern
Pacific was not al all dependent upon the
Union Pacific for its connection east
ward, read the majority opinion.
oar conclusion continued the opinion,
Is that all the facts OF this case. con-
sidered i'll their natural, reasonable and
practical aspect. and given their appro-
Hriyaie relative significance, do not make
Tie Union Pacific a substantial competi-
tor for transcontinental business with the
Southern Pacific in or prior 10 the year
i,-ol
We therefore pass to a consideration
: some less important matters relied
upon by the government 10 establish the
destruction of competition between these
-ompanieS.
Certainly the desire to appropriate the
iriiling business done by the Southern
Pacific on the minor lines TO suppress
competition in traffic which was in the
aggregate of such small proportions could
not have been the inspiration of the vast
outlay involved in the purchase or the
Huntington stock. 1t did not amount to
direct and substantial restraint of Ell
ther interstate or international commerce.
This is not sufficient to bring it within
tie condemnation OF the antitrust Law.
This concludes consideration of The
feet of the tranSa ction chiefly relied
4pon by the government in this case. But
4, is Contended that the purchase by the
Union Pacific of controlling interest IN
he stock of the Northern Pacific company
vas also violatiye OF the antitrust law.
No Reason for Injunction.
Without dwelling on the reason for
lie purchase OF this stock. disclosed in
The preceding statement of facts. it IS
sufficient 10 say that If any controlling
interest was thereby acquired, il was lost
some time before this suit was instituted,
md that none of that stock is held by or
for the Union Pacific Company
"As there is no showing of any like am
6tous project in this respect for the
future We fail 70 discover any oppor-
tan!ty or reason for the injunctive relief
IN this account.
Tie court held also that the investment
4 the Hartman lines in the Santa Fe
vas not for acquiring control and that II
i was for obtaining inside information
-oncernins the operation Of great COM
petitor they chose lawful way for do
ing il.
The conclusions If far dispose of this
~ase the opinion concluded. without the
necessity If determining the question
alch debated IN brief aud argument
whether securing control OF the southern
Pacific Company hy purchasing stock Of
Individual owners could ia any view of
ne case have contrayened tie antitrust
aw on the facts OF this case with all
heir reasonable and fair differences we
onclude that the government has failed
10 s1lbstantiate the ayermentS Of its bill.
Mr. Justic Van De Nanter. while a cir
e.!t Judge, participated in the hearing
elaboration ard conclusion of this case
and he now concurs In this opinion
Ls h.a IA tx.frrNG G...A and 6f
cree Will he entered 10 that effect.
Suit Begun in 1908.
The governments suit in equity against
the Southern Pacific Railroad Company
ard the Union Pacific Railroad Company
10 enio!n tho continued control OF the
former by the latter was filed in Salt
Lake city, Utah February 2 19os.
I'll, bin charged conspiracy and tht
formation of combination in violation o.
The Sherman ant!-trust act. passed by
CONGRESS 10 protect trade aud commerce
against unla wful uOnopohes.
The defendants named in the case werf
the Union Pacific Oregon Short Line
Sou heru Pscihc. oregon Railroad anf
Navigation COMPANY San Pedro. 10:
Angeles and Salt Lake Company Atchi
son Topeka and Santa Re. Northern
Pacihg Great Northern railway, IN
Farmers Loan ard Trust Company Ed
ward " Hartman. Jacob II. Scnft
Otto II Kahn. James Stiliman. Henry IL
Rogers, Henry {. Frck and William \
Clark
The governments petition was signe'
hy ATTORNEY General Ronaparte and HI
special assistants II sets forth in detail
the agreements hv which the defendant
at times since l'sl We're alleged TO hav
secured for themselves ard others, tn
management and control OF the variou
defendant roads. their branches an'
steamship lines and 70 have ever sine
operated them in restraint or commerce
Two Defendants Dead.
since The suit MAS tiled Mr. Hartman
and MIR Roger, have died Judge r 5
Iovett. successor Of Mr.. Hartman I
the railroad system, vas by stipulation
made a defendant Attorney Genera
Bonaparte and Assistant Attorney Gen
eral Purdv retired from office while III
SUR VAS pending Hearings were held i
mani cities OF the country.
Arguments were made in the case he
fore Judges Sanhorn Hook. Adams an
Nandeyanter. now a member of tn
Continued on Seventh Page)