The citizen-Republican. (Scotland, Bon Homme County, S.D.) 1???-19??, 1911-06-29
RAILROAD MERGER
ADJUDCED LAWFUL
BY court RULING
Suit Against Hartman Brought
Under Roosevelt Regime, De-
cidod Adversely TO q. s.

NTr5a--TT5 SSpEEI
cidod Adversely TO q. s.
st. Louis. June 2e.-The United
States circuit court of the Eighth dis
itrict today handed down an opinion
that the purchase of the Southern Pa
ciac by the Union Pacific did not
amount to a direct and substantial
restraint OF either interstate or IN
ternational 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
Justice WINS Van De Vanter, while
circuit Judge OF the Eighth district.
participated in the hearing delibera-
ton and conclusion in the case and
%concurred in the opinion.
Judge William c.. Hook filed a dis
senting opinion.
Opinion Of Majority.
The majority decision wal mailed
to the clerk Of the court here. The
only question, read the opinion, wal
whether the Union Pacific company,
extending only from Omaha and KAN.
sas City on he east to Ogden on tho
west, was a competing line prior to
ssei. scT TaIiooIttnenta business with
! ss.sss ssoasiioTii EnciIicT company, wnoa6
line extended from New York on the
EAST over the sea to New Orleans and
thence by rail-to San Francisco and
Portland OF tho west?
While the Union Pacific was en-
tirely dependent upon the Southern
Pacific for its connection westward.
the Southern Pacific WAS not at all
dependent upon the Union Pacific for
Its connection eastward" reads the
majority opinion.
Our conclusion" continued the
/ nFfrfnn s{c that oil <An 20 ntg - <1lo
ease. considered in their natural.
reasonable and practical aspect and
given their appropriate relative sig
niticance, do not make the Union Pa
e1ic 8 substantial competitor for
transcontinental business with the
Southern Pacific. In or prior to the
rear 1901.
we, therefore, pass to a considera-
lion OF some less important matters
relied upon by the government to
establish destruction OF competition
between those companies.
confiseation Not Intended.
Certainly the desire to appropriate
The trifiing business done by the South
srn Pacific on the minor lines, or to
Juppress q competition in traffic which
was in the aggregate of sue q small
proportion should not have been the in
lpiration of the vast outlay involved
N the purchase of tho Huntington
L WIN ib AZ " chi1lSoItI IL u OtIGSI
Ind substantial restraint OF either in
i~erstate or Internal commerce. This is
iot sufficient to bring 1t within the
condemnation of the antitrust law.
h concludes consideration of the
fleet of he transaction chiefly relied
,pon by the government In this case.
sut 1t is commended hat the purchase
" the Union Pacific, of a controlling
interest in the stock of the Northern
Pacific company was also violatiye OF
he antitrust law.
without dwelling on the reason for
he purchase of his stock, disclosed
n the preceding statement Of facts,
t is sufficient to say that IL any con-
rolling interest was thereby acquired
t was lost some time before his suit
vas instituted. and that mono of that
itock is now held by, or for. the i'm
on Pacific
AS there is no showing Of any
ike ambitious project in this respect
,or the future, we fail to discover any
opportunity or reason for the %injunc-
i've relief on this account"
The Santa Fe Purchase.
The court held also that the invest
ment OF the Hartman lines in the
Santa Fe was not for acquiring control,
and that If it was for obtaining In
alton of a great competitor they chose
a 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 control of
the Southern Pacific company by pur-
chasing stock of individual owners
could in any view of the case have
~,ontravened the antitrust law. On the
facts Of this case with all their reason
able and fair differences we conclude
] ,la 4 IT, III
stantiate the averments of its biil.''
Justice Van De Vanrer, while a cir
suit judge. participated in tho hearing.
elaboration and conclusroL IN this case
Ind he now concurs in this opinion.
The bill must be dismissed and a de-
cree will be entered to that effect"
The merger according to the court.
lid not cause a change in rates. no
complaints Of discrimination and no
conspiracy. Concerning these features
The opinion read:
"The proof shows that after 1901 as
well as before. the rates for trans-con-
iinental traffic We're the same over both
the Union Pacific and Southern Pa
cific railroads. There has since then
been, with respect to either of these
lines, no impairment Of service, no dis
continuance of efforts to satisfy the
pu5iic and no complaints or shippera
of any inferior or Inadequate service.
Are Better Roads.
"On the contrary, hundreds of mil
lions of dollars have since 1901 been
expended on both roads The physical
condition has been vastly improved and
their efficiency. for public service as well
rs for private profit has been greatly
enhanced. The whole proof taken to-
gether, we think. fails 20 disclose any
conspiracy to restrain interstate COM
merce or foreign commerce in violation
of the first section OF the act.
The saine consideration led TO the
conclusion that no combination, or con
spiracy 20 monopolize, or attempt to
monopolize trade. or commerce among
the states, or with foreign nations waa
entered into. Moreover, the fact that
thu Union Pacific company did not Sc
cure the control of the Santa Fe road
a thoroughly sufficient. well equipped
and powerful rival for transcontinental
business or HI Denver g. Rio Grande
a potential and later an actual and
powerful rival for the same business
affords additional and conclusive evi.
aence of no such combination or con
spiracy.
The governments suit in equity