The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1911-06-26
HARTMAN DEAL
/ IS HELD LEGAL
Merger Of Pacific Roads Up
held by Court.
WERE NOT COMPETITORS

Majority of Circuit Court of Appeals
Declares the Government Has Failed
to Substantiate the Charges Made
in Its Bill of Notwithstanding
Opinion Filed by Judge William
c. Hook
st. Louis, June 26.-The United
States circuit court of the Eighth
district filed an opinion that the pur-
chase of the Southern Pacific "did not
amount to a 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 wrot.
the majority opinion. Supreme Court
Justice Willis Van Devanter, while a
circuit Judge of the Eighth district,
participated in the hearing, delibera-
tion and conclusion in the case and
concurred in the opinion.
Judge William c. Hook filed dis
senting opinion.
1.-The only question" reads the ma
jority opinion, was whether the Union
Pacific company, extending only from
Omaha and Kansas City on the east
to Ogden on the west, was a compet
mental business with the Southern Pa
cific company, whose line extended
from New York on the east over the
sea to New Orleans and thence by
rail to San Francisco and Portland on
the west.
Conclusions of the Court.
"While the Union Pacific was en-
tirely dependent upon the Southern
Pacific for it's connection westward,
the Southern Pacific was not at all de-
pendent upon the Union Pacific for
its connection eastward" read the ma
jority opinion.
Our conclusion" continued the
opinion, "is that all the facts of this
case considered in their natural, rea-
sonable and practical aspect and CIV
en- their appropriate relative signifi-
canoe, do not make the Union Pacific
a substantial competitor for transcon-
tinental business with the Southern
Pacific in or prior to the year 1901.
I'VE therefore pass to considera-
ton of some less important matters
relied upon by the government to es-
tablish destruction Of competition be-
tween those companies.
Certainly the desire to appropriate
the trifiing business done by the
Southern Pacific on the minor lines,
or to suppress a competition in traffic
which was the aggregate of such small
proportions, could not nave been the
inspiration of the vast outlay involved
in the purchase of the Huntington
stock. 1t did not amount to a direct
and substantial restraint of either In
terstate or international commerce
This is not sufficient to bring it with
in the condemnation of the antitrust
law"
Control! of the Santa Fe.
The court held also that the invest
ment of the Hartman lines in the
Santa Fe was not for acquiring con-
troll, and that If it was for obtaining
inside information concerning the
operation of a great competitor they
chose 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 whether securing con-
troll of the Southern Pacific company
by purchasing stock of individual
owners could in any view of the case
have contravened the antitrust law.
On the facts of this case, with all
their reasonable and fair differences,
We conclude that the government has
failed to substantiate the averments
OF its bill.
'The bill must be dismissed and a
decree will be entered to that effect"
The merger, according to the court.
did not cause change in rates, no
complaints OF discrimination and nc
conspiracy. Concerning these 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 line"