The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1912-03-16
TO War AGAINST MERGER,
GOVERNMENT FILES BRIEF IN
CASE OF HARTMAN COM.
BINE.
In Written Arugnicnt for Highest
Tribunal Department OF Justice
Censurcs Inferior Judges Ruling.

Washington, March 12.-The gov
ernment's fight to split the merger
Of the Union Pacific and Southern
Pacific railway systems opened to-
day I'm the supreme court Of the
United States Attorney General
Wickersham and his special assistants,
Frank B. Kellogg and c. A. Severance,
filed comprehensive brief of their
arguments to be made orally in court
shortly after April 1. when the legal
ity OF the merger will be presented
for decision.
In addition to the brief Of argu-
ments. second brief Of 600 pages
was required to set forth the facts
in the case.
The court was told in the second
brief that the railroad combination
which ought to be dissolved originated
with f. III. Hartman, John H. Schiff
and associates. 1t brought under a
common control. the government
claims. the Union Pacific. the South
ern Pacific. the San Pedro, Los An
cycles and Salt Lake, with various
ocean steamship lines, among which
was the Pacific Mail Steamship COM
pany, which forms a part Of the
Panama route from New York to San
Francisco. and, in addition. had Sc
cured an influential voice in the
management of the Atchison, Topeka
ard Santa Fe Railway company.
The government criticized severely
the circuit court Of appeals Of the
Eighth circluit which dismissed the
petition for dissolution Of the merger,
Judge Hook alone dissenting. The
brief declares that the government
could not understand how the court
below got the impression that the
government did not claim that tho
Union Pacific was a competitor Of the
Southern Pacific for any business
originating nearer than a thousand
miles or more away from its lines.
This statement Is contrary to the
claim of the government in the petit
tion and in argument" says the
brief 'and is contrary to the evidence
of scores Of Witnesses
The decision is attacked because
the court held the Union Pacific could
not be competitor Of the Southern
Pacific by reason Of the fact that its
traffic moved to California points
over the Southern Pacific from Ogden.
rs 1t possible" asked the brief.
that the Union Pacific with its
thousands of miles Of railway and
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 declared the trial
court was wrong i'm holding two rail-
roads could not be competitors un-
less the competitive business could be
by them wholly over their
own rails. Instead Of there being no
Of service. the govern
ment asserted. the merger has re-
suited in the gross increase Of rates.
the prevention Of the construction Of
new lines into competitive territory
and sensible deterioration" Of SER
vice.
Government attorneys contend that
the rule of reason" applied by the
supreme court I'm the Standard Oil
and Tobacco cases was not
to be applied in this merger.
"The court did not decide that
where it appears that there is re-
straint upon two great systems of
competing roads," said the govern
ment. 'it is proper for IL to substitute
its Judgment as to whether such re-
straint is reasonable or unreasonable.
Such restraints were declared illegal
in these cases."