The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-12-03
THE BIG HARTMAN MERGER DISSOLVED
 BY THE DEGREE OF
 THE SUPREME COURT
Continued From Page one)


 ---~-~---~S--.-~-~~~~ affirmed those of the Standard oil and St. Louis Terminal association cases
 Justice Day in his opinion first dealt with the law in the case. He spoke of the Standard oil and Tobacco cases of last year as the final authority on the interpretation of the sherman antitrust act. He pointed to the decisions before the Standard Oil and Tobacco case as being approved in those cases, and then proceeded to apply to this merger the the principles discussed in all those decisions
 The Declaration of War
 We take it, therefore" he said in this connection, that it may be regarded as settled, that a combination which places railroads engaged in interstate commerce in such relation as to create a single dominating control in one corporation, whereby natural and existing competition in interstate commerce is unduly restrict ed or suppressed, is within the con- demnation of the act. While the law may not be able to enforce competition, 1t can reach combinations which rendered com petition impracticabe
 Nor do we think it can make any de- cided difference that instead of resorting to holding company, as was done in tie Northern Securities case the controlling interest in the stock of one corporation is tranferred to the other. The domina- ton and control, and the power to sup press competition, are acquired in the one case no less than in the other and the resulting mischief, at which the statute was aimed, is equally effective which ever form is adopted
 He added that a more effectual form of combination to gain the control of a competing railroad than for one road to acquire a dominating stock interest in the other. could hardly be conceived.
 One by one, Justice Day took Up the arguments upon which the railways hoped to defeat the governments suit. He first considered the arguments that the sys- tems were not competitors, but partners.
 "To compete,' said the justice, ''is to strive for something which another is actively seeking, and wishes to gain'
 Quotes Testimony He quoted the testimony of railroad men that that is what the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific were doing before | the purchase. Competition as to rates was not the only aim of the law, he ex- planed, but there was competition as to the character of the service rendered and the accommodations afforded. He said it made no difference that rates were not raised after the combination was effected
 Tt is the scope of such combinations and their power to suppress and strife competition, or create monopoly which determines the applicability of the act" Justice Day declared. The argument that the competitive traffic was indefenite material. he dismissed with the state- ment that it amounted to many millions of dollars.
 Next he took up the argument that the Union Pacific was only a connecting road and really had no line to San Fran cisco, but was dependent upon the South ern Pacific for such terms as it could make over the old Central Pacific line from ogden to San Francisco. He said that was going too far: that the Union Pacific's Portland route was available and it would have been detrimental to the Southern Pacific to nave declined an agreement to carry the Union Pacific's business from Ogden to San Franciso But this case is not to be tried upon theory" he continued, that only so much of the Southern Pacific system as operates between Ogden and San Francisco has been acquired The pur- chase may be judged by what it in fact accomplished and the natural and prob- able consequences of that of which was done. Because it would have been law full to gain, by purchase or otherwise, an entrance into California over the old Central Pacific, does not render it legal to acquire the entire system. largely engaged in interstate commerce | in competition with the purchasing road"
 Justice Day replied to the argument ' that d majority of the stock had not been purchased and therefore no con trol has been acquired He quoted Mir. Hartman. saving that compact, united ownership of 46 per cent of a big corporation was sufficient to con- trol 1t.