Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1911-06-24
Unitd States Circuit Court at
st. Louis Upholds Conten.
tions Of Hartman System
Against Government Suit.
LINE NOT COMPETING
FOR SAME BUSINESS
Merger Did Not Cause In.
crease in Passenger or Ship.
ping Rates and Both Roads
Charged Same for Service.


~ Louis. jun THE United
states circuit court of the eighth dts
tfict today handed down an opinion
That tho purchase of the southern Pa
cific by the Union Pacific did not
amount 20 dircc' aud substantial
restraint OF eithvr Interstate or in
iernational commercc"
The recent decision Of tho Emitted
states supreme court in the standard
pil cas-. was ciioi among others by
judge Elmer u. Adams. who wrote
thc majority op;n supreme Court
Justice Willis Nandoventer. while A
ireui, lIdge ~ tho eighth district.
participated IN The hearing. dcliber-
alton ana conclusion of thr cas-. and
'"ncurr"d IN the opinion
juds" William e. Hook nicd - dis
scouting opinion, in which ho EXPRESSED
Ne belief that ~, Governments pr.
titcu was well founded and should
have hccu srnatrd
IN" majority decision was written
ny Judge Elmer D. ADAMS and MAS
mailed tn tn. clerk of the court here.
TIL" only question read thu opinion.
was the Union Pacific company a.
tending 'nly from Omaha ana Kansas
'''N on the cas'. 10 ogden on thu
west. ~ competing line prior tn tgnl
'or transconiin"ntal busiress aith tho
southern Pacific company. whose line
extended from New York on the east
over the sea t. New Orleans. and
fhenc" by rail to san Francisco and
portland op the. west.
while the Union Pacific was on
tir"iN dependent upon the Southern
Pacific for It's connection westward
inc southern Pacific was not AT an
dependent upon the Union Pacific for
US CONNECTION eastward read IN.
majority opinion
our conclusion confirmed ,bo
opinion, lis that an the facts of the
ciso considered IN their natural raos.
enable ana practical aspect and given
,n'it appropriate Relative Identification.
Il" no, make the Union Pacific u sub
Ftanttn' competitor for transcontincnt-
al business with the Southern Pacific
~ or prior 10 the year 1901"
The court held that the Investment
of the Hartman lines IN In, santa
re WAS not for acquiring control and
mat II II Was FOR obtniniug insid,
information concerning the operation
81 great competitor they choS. "a
lawful way for doing IT,
Tho conclusions of fact dispos. OF
TINS case, the opinion concluded
without tn necessity Of determining
me question much debated I'm brief
ana argumcut of whether holding
Dntrnl az a..
pahN hN purchasing stock of individ-
'aI owners could In any vi"W uf the
case have contraVened the nuti-trt,st
law. OF the facts uf this case. with
all thoir reasonable aud fair infarau 90
We conclude that the goyernm,nt hnn
iailrd ~ SubSWntii,tc the ny,rm.n,s
~ It's bill
The bin mast be dismissed and "A
decree wNl 'c entered 10 that er-
feet
IN" merger. according To- III, rnurt
did not cause u change In rates. ma
&c mplaints of discrimination and ma
consp'rac Concurring IN thcsr faat.
ur"s tho opinion reads.
"Th, proof shows thnt .ft.r taoi
as wei as before. the rates for trans
continental traffic we're the same over
both the Union Pacific ana southern
Pacific lines.
lhrrr has since then been with
respect ~ either OF these lines mo- i'm.
pa.rm"nt of service. no discontipu.
once of efforts Ia satisfy the public
and no complaints ~ shippers OF any
inferior or Inadequate service.
ON tho contrary, hundreds of mil.
lions of dnllnrs have since 1907 p,er
q appended on those ronhs Thpir ub,.
Hical condition ha. been vas,,v i'm
proved ana thcir efficiency Tor ruh.
lic service, ~ Well as for priya,r
Itoilt, has been greatly enhanced
IN" "h"lo proof taken together. we
think. fails Ia disclose any cpnspiracv
TO restrain interstate 90 foreign com.
m"rcr in violation of IA. first ..c,ion
"f me act .l@Q
Juds" h"oh IN his dissenting opin-
ION refers 10 the governm.nt's com.
plant Of unlawful contract in re-
straint "i trade between ia, South.
crn Pacific aud the Union Pacific
railroads thus destroying or sup.
prossinf competition ". say, the
com binatiop was effected nv IN, pur.
chase hy tho Union Pacific of Part
of thr stock of the Southern Pacific
road. Judge Hook says there IN no
substantial difference between hia
holding of the corporate stocks OF
two companies by u third. such az
was condemned IN tina Northern 10
curitios ease, and the holding by one
Of these two In the stock OF another.
Ho SAYS
1T would he Idle To hold thai while
two competing railroad compnnies