New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-05-23
CALLS It MELLEN TRICK
untermyer Says Rutland Is Being
Used as Railroad Pawn.
FIGHTS AGAINST TRANSFER
urstate Service Commission Has
Betrayed Public and Is Only
a Blind, He Declares.

. r. arguing before Justice Gerard yesteI-
oav 10 have made permanent temporary
Injunction TO restrain the New York CEN
al from turning over to the New Haven
80 stock and control Of the Rutland Rail-
rosd Samuel Untermyer decried what he
,srned the absolute submission" Of the
r,,b,ic Service Commission Of the Cd Dis
,rict 10 the New York Central. The law
90, who appeared for several Rutland
,tockholders. declared that the attitude OF
~. commission constituted menace to
TIE community
Mr. Untermyer said the purpose OF the
Vow Haven in acquiring the Rutland road
xas 20 he able better to fight the Grand
Trunk. which is trying TO get footing IN
New England. and that after the purposed
scouisition the Mellen road might make up
with the Grand Trunk and then neglect the
PutIand. TO the detriment Of the minority
stockholders Of the latter company. lie
demanded equal treatment for the minority.
Mr. Untermyer quoted the testimony OF
President Mellen Of the New Haven before
the Public Service Commission acknowledge
ing that the Rutland was to be sort or
club.
These men" said the attorney, speak
Ing Of railroad magnates, ARE so imbuea
With the idea Of their own spotless integrity
end their power that Mr.. Mellen thinks that
ne can be the president Of twenty railroads
~ the same time. or, for that matter, OF all
the railroads I'm the United states, and stu
have no conflict even among the competing
roads"
The upstate Public Service Commission
was betraying the people Of the state OF
New York. declared Mt Untermyer and the
utilities board was n blind behind which
the railroads manipulated their affairs ana
deceived the people. He said the atutude
Of the commission had been 70 suggest to
the Rutland stockholders that It ought 10
make no difference to them whether they
we're oppressed by the one company or the
other
The attorney sad the transfer would be
IN violation of the Sherman antitrust law
because the New Haven road had parallel
tracks and was a competing company
The petitioners own 10000 shares Of the
Rutland stock. The majority consists OF
1900 shares. for which the New Haven has
agreed 10 pay the New York Central sos a
share. In case the court would not grant
the Injunction then Mr.. Unternyer thought
the court might compel the New Haven
road also TO pay the same amount share
for the minority stock held by the petit
TONERS
Nj Untermyer called attention to what
he termed the Inconsistency Of the Public
Service Commission in refusing 10 sanction
tho transfer Of the Ontario Western
Railroad TO the New York Central by the
New Haven and a month later in giving its
consent to the Rutland transfer. He said
that the Ontario & Western was no more
competing road as regards the New
York Central than was the Rutland a
competing road as regards the New Haven.
Mr. Untermyer said there was on agree
ment between the New York Central and
the New Haven affecting the two trans
fers. Mr.. Melen was quoted as saying be-
fore the Public Service Commission that he
regarded the Ontario & Western, for which
the New York Central offered 10000 as
P piece OF bric-a -brac which the New Ha-
ven company held for display in the show
Window of the railroad world. lie added
that the Rutland road was being used as
PAWN In the game OF railroad politics