Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1912-03-13
Government Formally Opens
Fight in United States Su-
preme Court by Filing Exten-
Sive Briefs.
DISMISSAL OF PETITION
SEVERELY CRITICIZED
Attorney General Wickersham
and His Special Assistants
Take Circuit Court of Appeals
to Task,

IBy Morning Journal special Leascd wire.l
Washington. March l2.--The gov
ernments fight to split the merger OF
the Union Pacific and southern Pacific
systems opened today in the supreme
court of the United States. Attorney
General Wickersham and his special
assistants, Frank -. kellogg and Cor
denio A. Severance. filed n compre-
hensive brief of their argument to be
made orally in court shortly after
April lst.
In addition to the brief of argu-
ments, a 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 railway combi-
nation now sought to be dissolved
originated with Edward Hartman.
Jacob Sehiff and associates. 1t
brought under a common control, the
government states, the Union Pacific.
the Southern Pacific, the San Pedro.
Los Angeles & Salt Lake. with various
ocean steamship lines, among which
the Pacific Mail Steamship Company.
which forms part of the Panama.
route from New York to San Fran
cisco; in addition, IL secured an IN
fiuential voice in the management OF
the Atchison, Topeka q Santa Fe rail-
way.
The government criticizes severely
the circuit court of appeals OF the
ninth district for disinissing the peti-
ton for dissolution of the merger.
Judge w. G. Hook alone dssented.
The brief declares the government
cannot understand how the court be-
low got the impression the govern
ment did not claim that the Union
Pacific was a competitor of the South
ern Pacific for any business originat-
ing nearer than 900 miles or more
away from its lines.
This statement is contrary to the
claim in the petition and In argu-
ment," 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 a competitor of the Southern Pa
clfic by reason OF the fact that It's
traffic removed to California points
over the Southern Pacific from Ogder.
is 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
effect on commerce In It's
with another complete
system reaching the same general ter
ritory?"
The government declares that the
trial court was wrong in holding two
railroads 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 government
asserts that the merger resulted inl
gross increase of rates, prevention OF
OF new lines into com
petitive territory and sensible de-
of service.
The government attorneys contend
that the rule of reason" applied by
the court In the Standard oil and To-
bacco cases was not to be applied In
upon this merger.
THE court did not decide that
where II appears il is "A restraint upon
two great systems Of competing rail
roads" said the government. III j.
proper for IL To substitute its judg-
ment as TO whether such restraint Is
reasonable or unreasonable. such re-
straints were declared illegal In these
eases