Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1911-06-24
RULE OF REASON
IS APPLIED.
Purchase of Southern by Un.
ion Pacific Not in Re-
straint of Trade
CIRCUIT COURT DECISION
Investment of Hartman in Santa
Fe Lines Was Legitimate
Enterprise.


ed States circuit court of the eighth
district today handed down an epin-
ion that the purchase of the Southern
Pacific by the Union Pacific ''did not
amount to direct and substantial
restraint of either interstate or inter-
national commerce" The recent de-
cision of the United States supreme
court in the Standard Oil case was
cited among others by Judge Elmer
B. Adams, who wrote the majority
opinion.
Supreme Court Justice Willis Van de
Venter while circuit judge of the
eighth district, participated in the
hearing, deliberation and conclusion
in the case and concurred in the
opinion.
Judge William C. Hook, filed dis
senting opinion, in which he express
ed the belief that the governments
petition was we'll founded and should
have been granted.
The majority decision was written
by Judge Elmer B. Adams and mailed
to the clerk of the court here.
-"The only question: read the
opinion, was the Union Pacific Com
pany extending only from Omaha and
Kansas City on the east, to Ogden on
the west, competing line, prior to
1901, for transcontinental business
with the Southern Pacific Company,
whose line extended from New York
| in the east over the sea to New Or
leans, and thence by rail to San Fran
cisco and Portland on the west.
while the Union Pacific was en-
tirely dependent upon the Southern
Pacific for it's connection westward,
the Southern Pacific was not at all
dependent upon the Union Pacific for
it's connection eastward" read the
majority opinion.
"Our conclusion" continued the
opinion, sis that all the facts of the
case considered in their natural, 'rea-
sonable' and practical aspect and CIV
en- their appropriate relative signifi-
cance, do not make the Union Pacific
substantial competitor for trans
continental business with the South
ern Pacific in or prior to the year
1901"
The court held that the investment
| of the Hartman lines in the Santa Fe
was not for acquiring control and that
iif it was for obtaining information
concerning the operation of a great
competitor they chose a lawful way
| for doing it.
"The conclusions of fact dispose
of this case" the opinion concluded,
without the necessity of determining
the question much debated in brief
and argument of whether holding con-
troll of the Southern Pacific Company
by purchasing stock of individual own
iers, could in any view of the case
have contravened the antitrust law.
Of the facts of this case with all their
reasonable and fair Inference we
conclude that the government has
failed to substantiate the averments
of it's bill.
The bill must be dismissed and a
decree will be entered to that effect.
Condition Improved.
Their physical condition has been
vastly improved and their efficiency
for public service, as well as for pri-
vate profit, has been greatly en-
hanced.
The whole proof taken together, we
think, fails to disclose any conspiracy
to restrain interstate or foreign COM
merce in violation of the first section
of the act
Shippers Made No Complaint.
st. Louis, June 24.-The merger, ac.
cording to the court, did not cause a
change in rates, no complaints Of dis
elimination and no conspiracy. Con-.
Touring in these features, the opin.
ion reads: "The proof shows that af
ter 1901, as we'll as before the rates
| for trans-continental traffic were the
same over both the Union Pacific and
Southern Pacific lines. There has
since then been with respect to either
!! of these lines, no impairment of serv.
lice, no discontinnance of efforts to
satisfy the public, and no complaints
of shippers of any inferior or made
Quate service.
"On the contrary, hundreds of mil
lions of dollars have since 1901 been
expended on these roads.
Hooks Dissenting Opinion.
st. Louis, Mo-, June 24-Judge Hook
in his dissenting opinion, refers to the
governments complaint Of unlawful
contract in restraint Of trade between
the Southern Pacific and the Union
Pacific railroads, thus destroying or
isuppressing competition. He says the
combination was effected by the pur
chase by the Union Pacific OF part Of
the stock of the Southern Pacific
road. Judge Hook says there is no
substantial difference between the
holding of the corporate stock Of two
companies by third, such a. was
condemned in the Northern Securi.
ties case and the holding by one Of
these two in the stock Of another.
He says: 1T would be idle to hold
that while two competing railroad
companies cannot lawfully submit to
a common control through a separ.
ate stock holding organization they
l y
CONTINUED on Page eighty