New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-06-25
HlRR|MAN MERGER
DOES NOT BREAK LAW
e.deraI Circuit Court Dlsmlsses
'ccrovernment's Suit Against
Union Pacific Railroad.
oue OF REASON APPLIED
:. substantial Restraint of Com
" .;.;on Found in Union Pa
c;ac's Control of Southern
Judge Hook Dissents.

ne rune 9a.-The governments Pc
- enioin the Union Pacific Railroad
n'v,v from continuing 10 control the
Ooap@ Pacific Railroad Company was
so'l.-s today by the United States Cir
's'', ut for the Sth District. Judge FL
q" Adams wrote the majority opinion,
~ .rsich Judge Sanborn and ex-Judge'
-..,~er,e court Justice Willis Van
,er corcurred Judge William c.
- wrote dissenting opinion.
decree was entered al Salt Lake
r,ere the suit was filed in February.
and opinions were handed down in
p,rl salt Lake city and this city.
,.s,e Adams found that the railroad
ssr Effected by Edward II Hartman
bic associates in 1901 and subsequently
~ ,ot amount 20 a direct and substantial
'.,.-.inf Of trade. interstate or interna-
- He found that the suppression OF
..,,,ior between the Union Pacific and
s,r,bs-n Pacific was so infinitely small
=. H, w9s unimportant. In connection
81 This feature Of this decision. Judge
...,,s cited the recent Standard Oil deci-
IN which the rule Of reason was
- down hv the United States Supreme
Court
indigo Hook i'm his dissenting opinion
I'D that the majority opinion so greatly
.,--ovs the act Of Congress that very 1T
=. lsf- nj .t when euplied 10 railroads.
.,5 that under the tests on which the ma
..-,.y orin.on was based the Union Pa
80 rrobabIy could have lawfully pur-
,,ssed control OF all the great railroad
,vs,sr1s in the United States.
1nsee Adams prefacsd his opinion with
-. statement that the government must
,,ore that The restraint in trade alleged
= the bill must be substantial in character
!. ,bs direct and immediate effect of the
,,.,bination The government. he said.
failed 10 prove this.
The Only Question.
Accorane TO the opinion the only CUES
ton was this.
Vas the -nion Pacific Company. extend
-s 0nIr from Omaha and Kansas city on
~ east 10 ogden on the west. compel
i-r line prior 10 1901 for tranSCOnuncAtaI
STsiness with the Southern Pacific Com
rany whose line extended from New LOT n
On the cas-, over the sea 10 New orleans
Portland on the west?
Answering this question, the opinion
Eys in part.
While the Union Pacific was entirely de-
pendent upon the Southern Paclnc FOR It's
connection westward the Southern Pacific
vas not 90 all dependent upon the Union
Pacific for Is connection eastward.
our conclusion is that al facts or this
cas- considered in their natural. reason
able AM practical aspect. ana given the4r
appropria'e relative significance, do not
make the Union Pacific a substantial com
pstitor for transcOntinental business with
The southern Pacific IN OF prior 10 the year
30
We therefore pass TO consideration Of
some less important matters relied upon
by the government 10 establish destI uctiOn
q competit iOn between these companies.
Certain ly the desire % appropriate the
irfing business done by the Southern "a
enc on ne minor lines or 10 suppress
d competition IN traffic which was in the
aggregate % SUCH small proportions could
Dor have been the inspiration OF the vast
OUTLAY involved IN the purchase or the
huntington stock. II dld nOt amount 20 !
direct and substantial restraint OF either
Interstate or International commerce. This
j. not sufficient 10 bring II within the con-
demnaIor Of the antitrust law.
This Concludes consideration Of the effect
Of the transaction chiefly relied upon by the
government in this case. But il is con-
tended that the purchase by the Union
Pacific OF a controlling interest IN the
stock NJ -he Northern Pacific Company
was also v!olative Of the antitrust law.
Without dwelling on the reason for the
purchase OF this stock disclosed in the
preceding statement Of facts. IL IS sufficient
% say tlat u any controlling interest was
thereby acquired. 10 was lost some time
before THIS suit was instituted. and none
u that stock IS held by or for the Union
Pacific Company.
AS there is no showing of any Ike am
bilious project in this respect for the
future. r.e fail % discover any opportunity
or reason for injunctive relief OF this ac-
coun.