Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-06-25

shippers Of any inferior, or inadequate
service.
"A substantial majority of the stock Of
the Southern Pacific company has been
held by parties other than the Union Pa
cifIc company, but we fall to find any
complaint by such holders of any dscrim-
ination against their road, or Of any fall
ure to properly promote its welfare. None
Of the minor points charged to have been
deprived of competitive opportunities by
the Huntington purchase are shown to
have suffered from the result Of that pur-
chase.
ION the contrary, hundreds of millions
OF dollars have since 1901 been expended on
these roads. Their physical condition has
been vastly improved and their efficiency
for public service as well for private
profit has been greatly enhanced The
whole proof taken together, we think, fails
TO disclose any conspiracy to restrain in
terstate or foreign commerce in violation
OF the first action OF the act.
1.-THE same consideration led to the con-
clusion that no combination. or conspiracy
to monopolize, or attempt to monopolise
trade, or commerce among the states, or
with foreign nations was entered into.
Moreover, the fact that the Union Pacific
company did not secure the control OF the
Santa Fe road, thoroughly sufficient,
well equipped and powerful rival for trans
continental business or the Denver & Rio
Grande. a potential and later an actual
and powerful rival OF the same business
affords additional and conclusive evidence
of no such combination. or conspiracy
History of the suit.
The governments suit in equity against
the Southern Pacific Railroad company
and the Union Pacific Railroad company
to enJoin the continued control Of the
former by the latter was filed in Salt Lake
City Utah. February 2. 1908.
The bill charged conspiracy and the forma-
tion of combination in violation of the
Sherman antitrust act. passed by congress
10 protect trade and commerce against un-
lawful monopolies.
The defendants named in the case we're
the Union Pacific. Oregon Short Line.
Southern Pacific, Oregon Railroad and
, Navigation company. San Pedro. Los
Angeles & Salt Lake company, Atchison,
, Topeka & Santa Fe. Northern Pacific,
Great Northern railway, the Farmers Loan
and Trust company. Edward II. Hartman.
Jacob II. Schiff, Otto II. Kahn, James
r1tillman. Henry II. Rogers, Henry c., Frick
and William A Clark.
The governments petition was signed
, by Attorney General Bonaparte and his
special assistants. II sets forth in detail
: the agreements by which the defendants
+, at times since 1901 were alleged to have
secured for themselves and others the
management and control OF the various
defendant roads their branches and steam.
ship lines and TO have ever since operated
them in restraint of commerce.
Two Defendants Are Dead.
Since the suit vas filed Mr.. Hartman
and Mr.. Rogers have died. Judge r. 8.
Lovett. successor OF Mr.. Hartman in the
} railroad system was by stipulation. made a
I. defendant. Attorney General Bonaparte
(, and Assistant Attorney General Purdy re-
tired from office while the suit was pend
ing. Hearings were held in many cities of
Z the country
Arguments were made in the case before
Judges Sanborn. Hook. Adams and Van
devanter, now a member of the United
States supreme court, October Is, 1910 in
81. Paul. c. A. Severance and Frank B.
kellogg argued for the government Judge
p +. Dunno Of California spoke for the
Southern Pacific, former Senator John C.
epooner appears for Henry c. Frick. N. H.
LOOMS OF Omaha for the Union Pacific
and David T, Watson OF Pittsburg sub
mitted n special brief and argued for all
Eighth judicial circuit OF the United
States circuit court had the case under
advisement since the arguments.
The suit was tried in the circuit court
under the expedition of congress. An APP
peal win be made directly TO the United
States supreme court.