New-York tribune., 1912-03-13
PACIFIC RAILROADS SUED
governments Fight 10 Dissolve
Meroer Before Supreme Court.
TRADE RESTRAINT ALLEGED
u;ckershan and Assistants Con-
tend That Rule of Reason
Does Not Apply.

,,.sh,noton. March 12.-The government s
90 dissolve the merger of the Union
-s5sc and the Southern Pacific railroad
..,,e -, hogan to-day in the Supreme Court
,hn United States. Attorney General
.r,.rnrsbam " and his special assistants,
49,, 49, Kellogg and Cordenio A. Sever
..sa Aled a brief Of their arguments to he
go n court shortly after April l. when
-, ,ogalitv Of the merger will be presented
fbr decision.
oddi,ion to the brief OF arguments, n
ana brief of six hundred pages was re-
,.ad n set forth the facts in the case.
IT.. court is told in the second brief that
a.. combination now sought to be dissolved
orrinated with Edward H. Hartman ia
ooh n schiff and their associates. II
hroueht under a common control. the gov
arrr,s,t alleged. the Union Pacific, the
coutbern Pacific. the San Pedro, Los An
,,o,es e. salt Lake. with various ocean
steamship lines, among which was the Pa
o'ec Mail Steamship Company, which forms
mart of the Panama route from New York
"a San Francisco. and. in addition. had Sc
epred an influential voice in the manage
,ospt Of the Atchison. Topeka Santa Fe
company.
me government severely cridcises the
cfenis Court Of Appeals of the Sth Circuit.
which dismissed the petition for dissolution
NJ the merger Judge Hook alone dlssented.
The brief says that the government could
not understand how the court below got the
impression that the government did not al
Iess that the Union Pacific was compeu-
tor of the Southern Pacific for any bust
rsss originating nearer than a thousand
miles or more away from its lines.
This statement is contrary to the claim
If the government in the petition and in
orsument." says the brief, and is con-
,.sro to the evidence Of scores Of wit
nesses."
The decision is attacked because the
court held that the Union Pacific could not
bs 4 competitor OF the Southern Pacific
because its traffic moved to California
no,nts over the Southern Pacific from
Ogden.
rs II possible" asks the brief, that the
Union Pacific. with its thousands OF miles
Of railway and steamship lines. reaching
from the Missouri River TO Portland and
san Francisco. has no appreciable effect
on commerce in its competition with an
other complete system reaching the same
general territory
The government asserts that the trial
court was wrong in holding that two rail-
roads could not be competitors unless the
competitive business could be handled by
mem wholly over their own rails. lnstead
of there being no impairment of service
The government asserts the merger re-
suited in the gross increase Of rates. the
prevention Of the construction of new lines
into competitive territory and sensible
deterioration' of service.
The governments attorneys contend that
the rule of reason" applied by the su-
preme Court in the Standard Oil and To-
baceo cases was not TO be applied to this
merger
"Ths court did not decide that where 1t
appears that there is a restraint upon two
great systems OF competing roads, says
de brief, 'it is proper for 1t 10 substitute
rs Judgment as to whether such restraint
& rea asonable or unreasonable. Such re-
straints were declared Illegal in these
cases"