The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1911-06-24

II
man merger case to the supremo
| court OF the United States, accord
| ING to officials Of the department.
OF justice. II 10 believed here that
an appeal will be taken Immediate-
/ W. In the absence Of Attorney
General Wickersham no offSciai
statement could be obtained but
there appeared TO be no doubt that
the case would be carried TO the
highest court.
ST. LOUIS. Mo-. June 24--In de-
Gliding that the pooling Of stocks or
the Union Pacific and Southern Pa
cihc and Ave subsidiary railroads does
not constitute a merger OF western
railroad traffic. the United States cir
cult court OF appeals today dismissed
the governments suit to dissolve the
combination.
The decision. which is a clear VIC
tory for the railroads. ends litigation
started by the government three years
ago. The chief allegation was that
the Hartman interests had conspired
to monopolize trafic to the Pacific
coast
BY the decision the government lost
In Its effort to prove Harriman,s west
ern railroad combination was an ille-
gal railroad trust.
Judge William G.. Hook, Of Leaven.
| worth, Kas., entered the only dissent
ing opinion. Willis II. Van Devanter,
now justice OF the United States su-
preme court participated In the hear
ing. delfberation and conclusion OF the
case, and he now concurs In the appel
late courts decision.
'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." says the court There
has since then been, with respect to
either OF these lines, no impairment
OF service. no Ciscontinuance OF ef-
forts to satisfy the public, and no COM.
plants of shippers OF any inferior or
inadequate service.
| THE larger number OF initial car.
riers striving for that traffic have con-
tinued active solicitation for business
over the line which assured them the
longest haul or otherwise benefited
them most, and, agents OF the two
roads have continued to exercise their
influence to secure business for either
road, according to It's availability. and
always In opposition to other active
competitors like the Santa Fs and
Denver & Rio Grande roads.
"A substantial majority of the stock
OF the Southern Pacific company has
been held by parties other than the
Union Pacific company, but we fail
to find any complaint by such holders
of any discrimination against their
road or OF any failure to properly pro
mote It's 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
purchase.
/ ION the contrary, hundreds OF mil
lions OF dollars have. since 1901 been
expended on these reads, Their phys
lical condition has been vastly i'm.
proved and their efficiency for public
| service, as well as for private profit.
has been greatly enhanced. The
whole proof taken together, we think.
fails to disclose any conspiracy TO re-
strain interstate or foreign commerce
In violation OF the frst section Of the
act"
/ The fact that the Santa re railroad
lwas not involved In the Pacific's
movement to seize most Of the west
ern business was the cause DR. the
courts concluding that the Union
/ Pacific had not attempted an illegal
combination Continuing. the de-
cision says:
THE same considerations lead to
the conclusion that no combination or
conspiracy to monopolize or attempt
to monopolize trade or commerce
among the states or with foreign na-
tions was entered into.
Moreover, the fact that the Union
Pacific company did not secure or nm
dertake to secure the control OF the
Santa Fe road. thoroughly suficient,
well-equipped and powerful rival for
trans-continental business, or the DEN
yer q Rio rGande road. a potential
and later an actual and powerful rival
for the same business affords add
tional and conclusive evidences OF no
such combination or conspiracy
"The purchase by the Union Pacific,
soon after acquiring the Huntington
A
| OF the Northern Pacific company tends
to the opposite conclusion. but In view
Of the main reason for its acquisition
and OF the facts just referred 10 a.
well as to the total cessation Of any
relations between that road and the
Union Pacific road. we are indisposed
tc give to that purchase alone any
considerable significance.
| .rT,ha farts alr.adv sfafed disponn
OF this case without the necessity ~
determining the question much a.
bated In brief and argument whether
securing control OF the Southern
Pacific company by purchasing stock
of Individual owners could In any vtov
Of the case have contravened the anti
. trust laws On the 'ncts or THIS CO.
with All their reasonable and foir ~
. ferepces we conclude that the koxorn-
. ment has failed 70 substnutInlo fho
.varments OF ifs bill.