The Hattiesburg news. (Hattiesburg, Miss.) 1908-1917, 1912-12-03
DISSOLUTION DECREE
PROBABLY BE ISSUED
Also Injunction To Prevent U. p. Vot-
ing Southern Pacific stocks-suit
Instituted by Attorney General Bon
aparte and Filed in Utah in 1908.
by Associated Press.)

washington, Dec. 3.-The United
States Supreme Court held that tn,
Union Pacific Railway Company by
acquisition of stock in the Southern
Pacific, effected a combination in vic
latlon OF the Sherman antitrust law
The Court indicated it would issue &
decree dissolving the merger and also
an injunction to prevent the Union Pa
cifc voting Southern Pacific stocks.
Fight Begun Four Years Ago.
The governments fight against the
Union Pacific merger began in 1908
In that year Attorney General Bona
parte filed in the United States Circuit
Court for Utah a petition to split the
transcontinental railroads brought to-
gether by Edward H. Hartman. This
powerful combination was alleged to
be in violation of the Sherman anti
trust law.
Hartman, Jacob H. Schiff, Otto H.
Kahn, James Stillman, Henry H.
Rogers, Henry C. Prick and William
A. Clark were named by the govern
ment as the creators of the combina-
ton and the supporters of its exist
ence. The allegations set forth in
the petition stretched over the devel-
opment of the entire nation and went
far into the years of the past. Circuit
Court Judge 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 46 per cent of the
stock of the Southern Pacific Com
pany referred to as ordinarily a con.
trolling interest. The main line of
the Union Pacific extended from Kan
sas City and Omaha to Ogden. By
subsidiary companies, it reached Port
land, Oregon, and thence, by steamers,
San Francisco and the Orient. The
Southern Pacific and line by sea and
land from New York to San Francisco
and Portland by way of New Orleans,
and owned the Central Pacific extend
ing from the terminus of the Union
Pacific at Ogden to San Francisco.
Two weighty questions were pre-
scented by this phase of the case. The
first was a question of law-Does the
purchase outright by one railroad COM
pany of the controlling corporate stock
of another result in combination in
violation of the Sherman antitrust
law? No case seemingly had arisen
which decided the point. Judge Hook
reached the conclusion that since it
had been decided in the Northern Sc
curities case that the holding of the
stock of two companies by a third
was violation of the law, therefore
the holding by one of those two of the
stock Of the other must likewise be a
violation. But Judge Adams, Van De-
vanter and Sanborn did not pass on
this question because they decided the
case against the government on the
second question.
The second question was whether
the Union Pacific and the Southern
Pacific were competitors for San Fran
cisco business. The government pre-
scented witnesses to show the two com
panies before the merger maintained
rival soliciting agents in the East and |
that they were commercially regarded |
as competitors for transcontinental |
business. The court reached the con-
olusion that the question of whether |
hey were competitors was not to be
decided entirely as a matter of fact |
governed by testimony, but was par
tally question of law. AS a matter
Of law it was held that the two could
not be competitors because the Union
Pacific had to depend upon the South
ern Pacific to get from Ogden to San
francisco and upon independent rail
'oads to bring freight and passengers
rom the East to it at Kansas City
md Omaha. In so finding, the court
the Union Pacific's line
rom Ogden through Portland to San
Francisco was impracticable.
Weight was given by the majority
If the court to the testimony for the
'ailroads that the purchase was made
lot to throttle competition but to pre-
'ent the Union Pacific being bottled
Up at Ogden. 1t was said that Mr.
Hartman acting for the Union Pacific,
lrst tried tc rrrcharc from the South
- 1