The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-06-24
MERGER is LEGAL
Union Pacific Wins Its Case in
U. S. Circuit Court.
Case Was Filed at Salt Lake
February 2, 1908.
JUDGE HOOK DISSENTS
An Appeal Will Be Taken to the
Supreme Court.
Violation of ShermanAnti-Trust
Law Was Charged.
JUDGE HOOK DISSENTS

ST Louis. June 24.-The merger of
the southern Pacific and Union Pa
cific railroads is legal, according to an
opinion handed down today by the
United States circuit court Of the
Eighth district
Judge Hook filed a dissenting opin-
ion. in which he expressed the belief
that the governments petition was
well founded and should have been
granted
The governments suit in equity
against the Southern Pacific Railroad
company and the Union PScific Rail
road company to enjoin the continued
control of the former by the latter
was filed in Salt Lake City Utah, Feb
ruary ?, 1908.
The defendants named in the case
were the Union Pacific, oregon Short
Line, Oregon Railway and Navigation
company, san Pedro, Los Angeles q
salt Lake company, Atchison, Topeka
& Santa Fe, Northern Pacific, Great
Northern railway, the Farmers Loan
and Trust company, z. II. Hartman,
Jacob II. Schin, Otto H Kahn, James
Stillman, Henry H. Rogers Henry G
Frick and VIM. A. Clark
The government petition was signed
by Attorney General Bonaparte and
his special assistants. 1t sets forth in
detail the agreements by which the de-
PENDANTS at times since 1909 were al
legged to have secured for themselves
and others the management and con-
troll of the various defendant roads,
their branches and steamshiO lines and
to have ever since operated them in
restraint of commerce. Since the suit
was filed Mr.. Hartman and Mr..
Rogers have died judge r. S Lovett,
successor Of Mr.. Hartman in the rail-
road system, was by stipulation, made
a defendant. Attorney General Bona
parte and Assistant Attorney General
Purdy retired from Office while the
suit was pending.
Hearings were held in many cities
of the country. Arguments were made
before Judges SanbOrn, Hook Adams
and Nandevanter, now a member Of
the United States supreme court Oc-
rober IS, 1910 in st. Paul, Q. A. Sew
erance and Frank q. Kellogg argued
for the government Judge P. r.
Dunno of California spoke for the
southern Pacific; former Senator JnO.
G.. SpOoner appeared for Henry c.
F'rick. n. H. Loomis of Omaha, for the
Union Pacific and David T. Watson of
Pittsburg submitted a special brief and
argued for all of the defendants. The
judges of the eighth judicial circuit of
the United States circuit court has
had the case under advisement since
the arguments.
The suit was tried in the circuit
court under the expedition act of
congress. An appeal will be made di-
rectly to the United States supreme
court.
The Majority Opinion.
The majority decision was written by
Judge Elmer 3. Adams and was mailed
to the clerk of the court here. The only
question is, read the opinion. was the
Uaion Pacific company extending only
from Omaha and Kansas City on the
% ST To Ion
ing line prior to 1901 for transcoutfpen-
tai business with the Southern Pacific
company whose line extended from New
York on the east over the sea to New
Orleans and thence by railroad to San
francisco and Portland on the west
While the Union Pacific was entire
ly dependent upon the Southern Pacific
for its connection westward the South
ern Pacific was not at all dependent
upon the Union Pacific for its connec-
tion eastward, read the majority opin-
ion.
Our conclusion continued the opin-
ion, is that all the facts of this case
considered in their natural reasonable
and practical aspect ard given theiV
appropriate relative significance do not
make the Union Pacific a substantial
competitor for transcOntinentaI bust
ness with the Southern Pacific in ol
prior to the year 1901
I'VE therefore pass to a considera-
tion 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 trlfl1ng business done by the
Southern Pacific on the minor lines
or to suppress a competition in traf-
fic which was in the aggregate of such
small proportions could not have beer
the inspiration of the vast outlay in
volved in the purchase of the Hunting
ton stock. It did not amount to a di-
rect and substantial restraint of either
Interstate or international comm cree
This is not sufficient to bring it with.
in the condemnation of the antitrust
law.
The Northern Pacific.
This concludes consideration of the
effect Of the transaction chiefly relied
upon by the government in this case
But it is contended that the purchase
by the Union Pacific of a controlline
interest in the stock Of the Northern
Pacific company was also violative oi
the antitrust law.
Without dwelling on the reason fol
the purchase of this stock. disclosed ir
the preceding statement of facts. It s.
sufficient to say that if any controlline
interest was thereby acquired it wa!
lost some time before this suit wa.
instituted, and that none of that stocl
IS now held by or for the Union Pa.
cific company.
"As there is no showing of an,
like ambitious project in this respec
for the future, we fail to discover am
opportunity or reason for the injunc.
tive relief on this account"
The court held also that the invest
ment of the Hartman lines in the San.
Ia Fe was not for acquiring contro
and that If it was for obtaining inside
Information concerning the operation
of a great competitor they chose Z
lawful way of doing it.
THE conclusions of fact dispose al
this case the opinion concluded
without the necessity of Determining
the question much debated in brie-
troll of the Southern Pacific compan,
by purcha sing stock of individual own
and argument whether securing con