The Mathews journal. (Mathews C.H. [Court House]) 1903-1937, 1911-06-29

Tiers striving for that traffic have con-
tinued active solicitation for business
over the line which assured them of
the longest haul, or otherwise bene-
nJed them most. and also that some
agents OF the two roads. which, be-
fore 1901, were separate. and are now
joint. have continued TO exercise their
influence TO secure business for either
road. according to its availability and
always in opposition to their active
competitors, like the Santa Fe and
Denver and Rio Grande lines"
The same considerations lead to
the conclusions that no combination
or conspiracy to mOnopolize. or at
tempt TO mOnopoiize. trade or com
merce among the States or with for
eign nations was entered into. How
ever. the fact that the Union Pacific
Company did not secure the control
! of the Santa Fe Road, a thoroughly
sufficient, well-equipped rival for
| transcontinental business. or the Den
Yer and Rio Grande. potential and
later an actual and powerful rival for
the same business, affords additional
and conclusive evidence OF no such
combination or conspiracy"
The purchase OF the Union Pacific
Company soon after acquiring the
| Huntington stock, or a majority OF the
capital stock of the Northern Pacific
Company. tends to the opposite con-
clusion, but in favor of the main rea-
son for its acquisition and for the facts
satiOn of any relations between that
road and the Union Pacific Company,
and we are indisposed to give to that
purchase any considerable significance.
The conclusion OF facts already
stated disposes of this case without the
necessity of determining the question,
much debated in brief and argument,
whether securing control of the South
ern Pacific by purchasing stock of in
dividual owners could in any view Of
\ a..
trust law. on the facts of this case,
with all their reasonable and fair in
ferenceS, we conclude that the govern
ment had failed TO substantiate the
averments of the bill"
The suit to dissolve the Hartman
combination of railroads was filed by
the United States Government in the
United States Circuit Court for the
district of Utah. February l, 1905,
District Attorney Hiram h. Booth Ill
ing the papers.
Much of the testimony introduced
in the suit was gathered in Chicago
as the result of a long investigation
here by Ralph Mckenzie, special
agent of the Department of Justice,
who questioned many big business
men and obtained a mass of facts
about the railroads.
Caused Roosevelt to Shout Liar"
The action was the outcome of the
/ long controversy between the Admin
istration and Mr. Hartman and the
personal quarrel between the railroad
wizard and Theodore Roosevelt.
The Santa Fe was made a defendant
/ because Hartman owned $10,O0O,O0O
/ of its stock and the Great Northern
/ because of similar stock ownership.
| amounting to $35,0OO.000.
| The San Pedro was Joined because
/ Hartman was said to have compelled
Senator Clark TO let the Oregon Short
| Line have S25.0OO.000 worth of the
stock of that company. 1t was the
| theory of the Government that by
1 ownership of the Sante Fe stock Har-
| riman was able TO compel that rail-
road to abandon its proposed Oriental
| steamship line out of San Diego har-
/ Dor. in return for which Hartman al
/ lOtted the Sante Ee twenty-five per
cent. of all the traffic from the Orient
which entered the harbor of San Fran
| cisco
The Government charged that the
! Hartman traffic mergers at Chicago
| routed the greater portion Of the traf-
| hc between Chicago and the Pacific
| coast as they pleased. without regard
To competition.
The testimony in the suit was OF
| enormous volume and was taken in
| a score of cities through special eX-
aminers empowered 10 administer
| on tn. a hearing. taking many days.
was held in Chicago. in Judge Kohl
saat's court room. Special Examiner
| ). @. Williams presiding.
Many freight traffic agents Of Chi
| cago firms were examined and testi-
fed that there was no competition be-
tween the Union Pacific and Southern
| Pacific for freight business 10 the
| coast.
The death of Mr.. Hartman removed
| the real defendant, but the suit con
tinued against the remaining corpo-
rations and individuals.