Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-12-03

lne power 10 suppress competition are
acquired in the one case no less than
in the other. and the resulting mis-
chief. at which the statute was aimed
is equally effective whichever form is
adopted"
: He added that a more effectual form
of combination to secure 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 government suit
He first considered the argument that
the systems were not competitors. but
partners
ITO compete said the justice lis to
strive for something which another is ac-
lively seeking and wishing to gain" lie
quoted the testimony of railroad men
that this was what the Union Pacific
and Southern Pacific were doing by the
purchase Competition as to rates was
not the only aim of the law. he explain
ed, but there was competition as to the
character of service rendered and the
accommodations afforded He said that
it made no difference that rates were not
raised for the time being after the com
binaton was effected.
at is the scope Of such combinations
and their power to suppress and stitie
competition or create monopoly which
determines the applicability of the act,
Justice Day declared. The argument that
the competitive traffic was infinitely
small he dismissed with the statement
that 1t amounted to many millions OF
dollars
Next he took up the argument that the
Union Pacific was only 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 cid Central Pacific line
from Ogden to San Francisco He said
that the Union Pacific's Portland route
was available
But this case is not to be decided upon
the theory" he continued. that only so
much of the Southern Pacific system as
operates between ogden and San Fran
cisco has been acquired The purchase
may be judged by what it in fact accom-
plished. and the natural and probable
consequences of that which was done
Because it would have been lawful to
sam ~ Rt+HSfttt7V5 Of ViffCT ell
trance into California over the. old Cen
trail Pacific does not render it legal to
acquire the entire system largely en-
gagged in interstate commerce in eompe-
ution with the purchasing road
Justice Day replied TO the argument
that a majority of the stock had not
been purchased and therefore no control
had been acquired. He quoted Mr. Har-
riman as saying that a compact. united
ownership of IS per cent. of big corpor-
alton was sufficient to control it.
Washington, Dec THE supreme
court, today. in an opinion. announced
by Justice Day. held, that the Union
Pacific Railroad Co, by the aeauisi-
ton of stock in the Southern Pasific.
had effected a combination in viola
tian of the Sherman anti trust law.
Justice Day. reading the opinion, in
dicated that the court would enter n
decree 10 dissolve the combination,
and also an injunction to prevent the
Union Pacific from voting Southern
Pacific stock.
In announcing the opinion Justice
Day said:
The court reaches the decision that
the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific
system, prior to the stock purchase
were competitors, engaged in interstate
commerce acting Independently as to
large amount of such carrying trade
and, that since the acquisition of the
stock in question, the dominating pow
er of the Union Pacific has suppressed
competition between the systems and
effected combination in restraint off
interstate commerce. within the pro-
hibitions of the act
In order to enforce the statute, the
court is required to forbid the doing
in the future of acts like those, which
arc found to have been done in viola
ton thereof, and to enter a decree
which will effectually dissolve the COM
bination found to exist in violation of
the statute.
The decree should provide an in
junction against the right to vote this
stock While in the ownership or con-
troll of the Union Pacific Co, or any
corporation owned by it, or while held
by any corporation or person for the
Union Pacific CO., and forbid any
transfer or disposition thereof in such
wise as to continue it's control, and
should provide an injunction against
the pa yment of dividends upon such
stock while thus held. except to a re-
ceiver to be appointed by the court,
who shall collect and hold such divi-
dends until disposed of by the decree
Of the court.
"As the court below dismissed the gov
ernment's bill, it was unnecessary there
fore to consider the disposition of the
shares of stock acquired by the Union
Pacific Co., which acquisition, we hold,
constituted an unlawful combination in
violation of the antitrust act. In order
to effeetually conclude the operating
force of the combination sucn disposition
should be made subject to the approval
and decree of the court, and any plan
for the disposition of this stock must be
such as to effectually dissolve the UNI
lawful combination thus created. The
court shall proceed, upon the presenta-
ton Of any plan, to hear the government
and defendants and may bring in any
additional parties whose presence may