Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-06-25
BILL IS ORDERED DISMISSED
JudEe Hook Files Dissenting opinton'
In witch He says Government
Made Case aud Injunction
should Issue.

st. LOUIS. June Ifr-tnf AnlNtu EAaNoA
circuit court Of the Eighth district today
handed down an opinion that the purchase
Of the Southern Pacific by the Union Pa
cific did not amount TO a direct ana SUB
stsntial restraint Of either interstate or In
ternauonsl commerce"
The recent decision Of the United states
supreme court in the Standard OF case
was cited among others by Judge Elmer y.
Adams. who wrote the majority opinion.
/ Supreme Court Justice Willis Vandevanter.
while circuit Judge Of the Eighth district
participated in the hearing. deliberation and
conclusion In the case and coneurred In
the opinion. Judge william {. Hook filed
dissenting opinion.
Opinion Is by Judge Adams.
| The majority decision was written by
Judge Elmer b. Adams and was mailed to
the clerk of the court here. The only ques-
ton. reads the opinion. was this: WAs
the Union Pacific company. extending only
from Omaha and Kansas City on the east
to ogden en- the west. a competing line
prior to 1901 for transcontinental business
with the Southern Pacific company, whose
line extends from New York on the east
over the sea to New Orleans and thence
\ by rail TO San Francisco and Portland on
| the west.
While the Union Pacific was entirely
dependent upon tho 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 opinion.
is that all the facts Of this case CON
sidered in their natural reasonable and
practical aspect and given their appropriate
relative Specification do not make the
Union Pacific q substantial competitor for
tranEcontinental business with the Southern
Pacific railway in or prior to the year 1901.
We therefore pass 90 consideration on
some less important matters relied upon by
! the government to establish destruction OF
competition between those companies.
J No Direct or substa ntIaI. ReAarafnt.
i ''Certainly the desire TO appropriate the
trifling business done by the Southern Pa
cific on the minor lines TO suppress
competition in traffic which was In the
| aggregate OF such q small proportion could
not have been the inspiration OF the vast
outlay involved in the purchase of the
Huntington stock. II did not amount to
a direct and substantial restraint of either
interstate or International commerce. This
is not sufficient to bring IL within the con-
demnation OF the antitrust law.
This concludes consideration of the ef-
feet Of the transaction chiefly relied upon
by the government in this case But IL L.
contended that the purchase by the Union
Pacific of a controlling interest IN the
stock Of the Northern Pacific company was
also violative Of the antitrust Law.
Without dwelling on the reason for the
purchase Of this stock. disclosed in the
preceding statement of facts. 1t Is suf-
1 "a -
est was thereby acquired, IL was lost some
time before this suit was instituted and
that none OF that stock is now held by, or
for the Union Pacific company.
| AS there is no showing of any like am
bilious project in this respect for the fu-
ture We fail to discover any opportunity or
reason Tor the injunctive relief on this ac-
count"
Relation with santa Re.
The court held also that the investment OF
the Hartman lines in the Santa Fe was
not for acquiring control and that II Il
was for obtaining inside information con-
cerning the operation of a great competitor
lthey chose a lawful way for doing II.
The conclusions Of fact dispose Of this
case" the opinion concluded. without the
necessity of determining the question much
securing control 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.
"Mr Justice VRndeventer. while q cir
cult judge, participated In the hearing, de-
liberation and conclusion in this case and he
now concurs in this opinion.
The bill must be dismissed and a decree
win be entered 10 that effect"
No Change in Rates.
The merger. according 10 the court did
not cause change in rates no complaints
OF discrimination and no conspiracy Con-
icerning these features the opinion read:
The proof shows that after 1901. as
well as before the rates for transeontinentAl
tBaSfie were the same over both the
Union Pacific and Southern Pacific lines.
There has since then been with respect
10 either OF these lines, no impairment Of
service, no discontinuAnce OF EFFORTS 20
satisfy the public and no complaints Of