The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-12-02
UNION PACIFIC
LOSES IN SUIT
Supreme Court Today De-
cided Famous Merger Case
For the Prosecution.
ARE VIOLATING
SHERMAN MEASURE
Suit Involved Great Organization and
Has Been In the Courts Since 1909
Case Was Built Iareely Around
Purchase Of Southern Pacific Stock.

Washington, Dec. 2.-In q decision
handed down by the supreme court
today. the government won its suit in
the Union Pacific merger case.
Justice Day in reading the opinion,
indicated that the court would enter
q decree to dissolve the combination
and also an injunction to prevent the
Union Pacific from voting the South
ern Pacific stock. The court held that
the Union Pacific Railroad company,
by acquisition Of the stock in. the
S~uthern Pacific, had effected a COM
bination in violation Of the Sherman
antitrust law.
The governments fight against the
In that year Attorney General Bona
parte filed In the United States cir
cult court for Utah a petition to split
the transcohtinenal railroads brought
together by Edward H. Hartman.
This powerful combination was al
legged to be in violation Of the Sher-
man antitrust law.
Hartman. Jacob n. schin, Otto H.
Kahn. James Stillman, Henry II. Rog-
ers, Henry G. Frick and william A.
Clark we're named by the government
as the creators Of the combination and
the supporters Of it's existence. The
allegations set forth in the petition
stretched over the development Of the
entire nation and went far into the
years Of the past. Circuit Court Judges
Sanborn. Van Devanter, Hook and
Adams were called to pass on the
suit.
The governments case was built
largely around the purchase by the
Union Pacific Railroad company In
1901 and 1902 Of forty-six per. cent
Of the stock of the Southern Pacific
company referred to as ordinarily q
controlling interest. The main line
Of the Union Pacific extended from
Kansas City and Omaha to Ogden
By subsidiary companies. it reached
Portland. Ore. and thence. by steam
ers, San Francisco and the orient. The
Southern Pacific had a line by sea
and land from New York to San Fran
cisco and Portland by way of New
Orleans, and owned the Central Pa
cific extending from the terminus of
the Union Pacific at Ogden to San
Francisco.
Two Big Questions.
Two weighty questions were pre-
sented by this phase Of the case. The
first was q question Of law-does the
purchase outright by one railroad
company Of the controlling corporate
stock Of another result in combina-
tion In violation Of the Sherman anti
III uoS Ad" NO Case seemingly ndO
arisen which decided the point. Judge
Hook reached the conclusion that
since It had been decided in the
Northern Securities case that the
holding. of the stock of two COM
panies by third was a violation of
the law, therefore the holding by one
Of those two Of the stock Of the other
must likewise be a violation. But
Judges Adams, Van Devanter and
Sanborn did not pass on this question
because they decided the case against
the government on the second ques-
ton.
The second question was whether
the Union Pacific and the Southern
Pacific were competitors for San Fran
cisco business. The government pre-
sented witnesses to show the two
companies before the merger main
tanned rival soliciting agents in the
east and that they were commercially
regarded as competitors for. transcon-
tinental business. The court reached
the conclusion that the question of
whether they were competitors was
not to be decided entirely as mat.
ter Of fact governed by testimony. but
was partially question of law. AS
a matter of law. 1t was held that the