Elk City mining news. (Elk City, Idaho) 1903-1913, 1911-07-06
governments PETITION TO
ENJOIN U. P. FROM CONTROL
OF S. P. DENIED.
Circuit Court Orders Dismissal of Case
Judge Hook Hands in Dissenting
Opinion-History of Case Shows
Combine Made Little Change of Rates
or Service and Has Proved Beneficial.

troll the Southern Pacific railroad COM
pany was dismissed by the United |
States circuit court of the Eighth dis |
trict Judge Elmer B. Adams wrote
the majority opinion, which was con-
CURED in by Judge Sanborn and former
judge, now Supreme Court Justice
Vandevanter. Judge William C. Hook
wrote a dissenting opinion.
The decree was entered at Salt Lake
City, Utah, where the suit was filed in
February, 1908, and the opinions
handed down in st. Paul, Salt Lake
City and here.
Judge Adams found that the railroad
merger, effected by the late E. H.
Hartman and his associates, in 1901,
and subsequently, did not amount to
direct and substantial restraint of
trade, interstate or international.
He found that the suppression of
competition between the Union Pacific
and the Southern Pacific was so in
fnitesmally small that it was unim-
portant. In connection with this feat
ure of the decision, Judge Adams
cited the recent Standard Oil decision
in which the rule of reason was first
laid down by the United States supreme
court.
Hooks Dissenting Opinion.
Judge Hook, in his dissenting opin-
ion, said the majority opinion $50
greatly narrows the act of congress
that very little is left of it when ap-
piled to railroads." and that under the
tests which the majority opinion was
based on, "the Union Pacific could
probably have lawfully purchased con-
troll of all the great railroad systems
in the United States"
Judge Adams prefaced his opinion
with the statement that the govern
ment must prove the restraint in trade,
alleged in the bill, must be substantial
in character as the direct and imme-
date effect of the combination. The
government, he said, later, failed to
prove this.
The merger, according to the court,
did not cause a change in rates, no
complaints of discrimination and nc
conspiracy. Concurring in these feat
ures the opinion reads:
"The proof shows that after 1901, as
well as before, the rates for transcon
tinental traffic were the same over botf
the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific
lines.
''There has since then been, with re
spect to either of these lines, no i'm
pairment of service, no discontinuanc'
of efforts to satisfy the public, and ne
complaints of shippers of any inferior
or inadequate service.
GA substantial majority of the stool
of the Southern Pacific company ha
been held by parties other than tn
Union Pacific company, but we fail t.
find any complaint by such holders O
any discrimination against their road
of any failure properly to promote it
welfare. None of the minor point
charged to have been deprived of com
petitive opportunities by the Hunting
ton purchase are shown to have SUI
fered from the result of that purchase
Millions Spent on Roads.
"On the contrary, hundreds of mi
lions OIL QOldIo ndNC oihNS 1SS@ wv
expended on these roads. Their physics
condition has been vastly improved an
their efficiency for public service,
well as for private profit, has bee
greatly enhanced. The whole proc
taken together, we think, fails to di
close any conspiracy to restrain int
state or foreign commerce In vlolatlo
of the first section of the act.
UThe same considerations lead to tn
conclusion that no combination or col
spracy to monopolize or attempt
monopolize trade or commerce anon
the states, or with foreign nations, VIZ
entered into. Moreover, the fact tn;
the Union Pacific company did not s
cure the control Of the Santa Fe roa
thoroughly sufficient, well-equipp'
and powerful rival, for transcontinent
business. or the Denver g. Rio Crane
road. a potential and later an actu
and powerful rival of the same bus
ness. affords additional and conclusi'
ov;dence of no such combination or co
spiracy.
"The purchase by the Union Pacii
company soon after acquiring I
Huntington stock of majority of t
canital stock of the Northern Paci
company tends to the opposite conc
s;on. hut in view of the main reas
for its acquisition and of the 9th
Facts lust referred to as well as t
total cessation of any relations betwe
that road and the Union Pacihc co