Las Vegas optic. (East Las Vegas, N.M.) 1908-1921, 1911-06-24
NOT UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT
DECISION WRITTEN BY JUDGE ELL
MER B. ADAMS AND CONCUR
RED IN BY VAN DEvANTER
DISSENTING OPINION FILED
JUDGE WILLIAM C. HOOK HOLDS
PETITION OF PLAINTIFF
WAS WELL FOUNDED

ST. Louis, June 24.-The United
States circuit court of the Eighth dis
trict, today handed down an opinion
that the purchase of the Southern Pa
cific by the Union Pacific did moi
amount to direct and substantial re
straint of either interstate or interna
tional commerce."
The recent decision 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 JUS
tice Willis Van Devanter, while cir.
cult judge of the Eighth district, par
ticipated in the hearing, federation
and conclusion in the case and con-
Cured in the opinion.
Judge William C. Hook, filed dis
senting opinion, in which he express
ed the belief that the governments
petition was well founded and should
have been granted
The majority decision was written
by Judge Elmer B. Adams and was
mailed to the clerk of the court. here.
The only question. read the opinion.
was whether the Union Pacific COM
pany, extending only from Omaha
and Kansas City on the east, to Ogden
or the west, was a competing line prior
to 1901 for transcontinental business
with the Southern Pacific company,
whose line extended from New York
en- 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 its connection westward,
the Southern Pacific was not at all de-
pendent upon the Union Pacific for
its connection eastward" read the
majority opinion.
"Our conclusion" continued the
opinion, " is that the facts of the case
considered in their natural, reasonable
and practical aspect and given their
appropriate significance do not make
the Union Pacific substantial COM
petitor for transcontinental business
with the Southern 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 if it was for the purpose of ac-
quiring inside information concerning
the operation of a great competitor
they chose lawful way for dong it,
The conclusion of fact disposes 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
ers could n any view of the case have
contravened the anti-trust law OF
The facts of this case with all their
reasonahle and fair inference we con
clude that the government has failed
to substantiate the averments of its
bill The bill must be dismissed and
! decree vii be entered to, that effect.
The merger according to the court,
did not cause change in rates, or
complaints of discrimination and no
conspiracy Concerning those features
the opinion reads:
THE proof shows that after 1901,
as well as before the rates for trans.
continental traffic were the same over
both the Union Pacific and Southern
Pacific lines There has since then
with respect to either Of these lines.
been no impairment of service, no dis.
continuance of efforts to satisfy the
public and no complaints of shippers
of Inadequate service On the con.
ttary hundreds of millions of dollars