The Washington times., 1911-06-24
HARTMAN MERGER
UPHELD BY COURT.
GOVERNMENT LOSES
Federal Bench Declares Rail
Combine Is Not Unlaw-
full Trust.
Continued from First Page


shippers Of any inferior or inadequate
service.
The large number Of initial carriers
striving for that traffic have Continued
active solicitation for business over the
line which assured them the longest
haul or otherwise benefited them most,
and. although some agencies of the two
roads, which before 1901 were separate
are now joint, they have continued to
exercise their influence to secure BUSH
ness for either road, according to avail
ability, and always in opposition to
other active competitors like the Santa
Fe and Denver and Rio Grande roads.
"A substantial majority OF the stock
OF the Southern Pacific Company has
been held by parties other than the
find any complaint by such holders Of
any discrimination against their road
or OF any failure to properly promote
its welfare. None of the minor points
charged to have been deprived Of COM
petitive opportunities by the Huntington
from the result Of that purchase.
"On the contrary, hundreds of millions
Of dollars have since 1901 been expended
on these roads. Their physical condI-
efficiency for public services as Well
as for prite profit has been greatly
enhanced. The whole proof, taken to-
gether, we think, fails TO disclose any
conspiracy to restrain internal or for
eign commerce In violation OF the first
section of the act"
The fact that the Santa Fe railroad
was not involved in the movement to
seize most Of the Western business,
was the cause for the courts concluding
that the Union Pacific had not attempt
ed an Illegal combination. Continuing
the decision says:
The same consideration led to the
conclusion that no combination or con-
spiracy to monopolize, or attempt to
monopolize, trade or commerce among
the States, or with foreign nations, was
entered into. Moreover, the fact that
the Union Pacific Company did not Sc
cure or undertake to secure, the con-
troll of the Santa Fe road, thoroughly
sufficient, well equipped, and powerful
rival for transcontinental business, ur
the Denver and Rio Grande road, a po-
tentiol and later an actual and powerful
rival for the same business, affords
additional and conclusive evidence of
no such combination or conspiracy.
The purchase by the Union Pacific
soon after acquiring the Huntington
stock of u majority Of the capital stock
OF the Northern Pa-slfic Company tends
to the opposite conclusion, but in view
OF the main reasons for its acquisition
and Of the other facts Just referred to.
as well as to the total cessation OF
any relations between that road and the
Union Pacific Company, we are not dis
posed to give to that purchase alone
any considerable significance.
The conclusion OF fact, already
stated, dispOscs of this case without the
necessity of determining the question
much debated in brief and argument
whether securing control of the South
ern Pacific Company by purchasing
stock nf individual owners could in any
view of the case have contravened the
antitrust laws.
''0n the facts of this case with all
their reasonable and fair differences, we
,.OncllGe that the Government: has failed
10 substantiate the averments of its
BILL"