The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1912-12-05
SUPREME COURTS
DECISION MAKES
GREAT CHANGES
Railroad World Startled
When the Decision
IS Sweeping.
LII N E S SEPARATE
Union Pacific Must Divide
Itself Into Component
Parts.

Washington, ID. CA revolution
,in railroad control is precipitated by
the decision of the United States Su-
lpreme court ordering the Union Paci-
fic railroad company to divest itself
}of the stock it owns in the Southern
Pacific railroad company
Great railroad systems, combining
competing lines, no longer are pos
slble in this country as result of the
application OF the Sherman antitrust
law to the Union Pacific-Souther
Pacific situation
A railroad may acquire connecting
lines. as shown by the authorization
iglven by the court to the Union Paci-
Tic to retain possession of the Central
Pacific. owned by the Southern Pafi-
flc. This will enable the Union Pacific
to run from the Missouri river to the
Pacific coast.
But no matter how far apart the
two railroads are, they cannot be en-
braced in the same system if they
compete. Thus the Union Pacific is
prohibiting from controlling the
Southern Pacific, though at points
these roads are distant 900 miles
Means End of Hartman Idea.
There are other roads also which,
it is believed, will fall within the
scope OF the supreme court, but in all
the cases the facts as developed will
NATURALLY have an important bearing
upon the question of whether or not
the lines they control are competing.
i The decision means that the "Har-
of tl,., A ,,,,.
II roads cannot be effected. In other
I words, it is impossible for great
captain of transportation TO seize
road after road and combine them
into single system whether they are
competing or not
| With the proposition of through
routes the court undoubtedly is in
sympathy. But The proposition of sup
preston of competition through rail
road combination the court will not
tolerate.
Effect ON Rates Fight.
Had the vast scheme of railroad
control been legalized the restraints
of competition upon excessive and
unjust rates would have been avoid
ed and the evils involved therein
would have been remediless under
existing laws.
1t is appara Mt that such a condition
OF combination would have required
a corresponding change in the reg
ulating statutes for law which
might answer the purpose when COM
petition was relied upon to secure
reasonable rates is demonstrably in
adequate when that competition is
displayed by powerful combinations.
The fact that the supreme court
holds that competing lines shall not
be embraced in the same system as
sures not only the restoration of COM
petition with all the advantages it
embraces, but that the interstate COM
merce laws OF today, as far as they
go, anr adopted to deal with the rate
situation.
Statement of Justice Day.
In announcing the opinion Justice
Day said:
This court reaches the decision
that the Union Pacific and Southern
Pacific systems, prior to the stock
purchase. We're competitors engaged
in interstate commerce, acting indie
pendently as to large amount of
such carrying trade, and that since
: the acquisition of the stock in ques-
ton the dominating power of the
Union Pacific has suppressed compe-
tition between the systems and has
g effected combination in restraint of
interstate commerce within the proh
S bition of the act.
In order to enforce the statute the
4 court is required to forbid the doing
i in the future of acts like those which
}. are found to have been done in VIOLA
ton thereof and to enter a decree
e which will cffectualy dissolve the
y combination found to exist in viola
$ ton of the statute.
h Injunction on Stock Voting.
n THE decree should provide an in
junction against the right to vote this
5 stock while in the ownership or con-
e troll OF the Union Pacific company. Oh
e any corporation owned by it, or while
= held by any corporation or person for
+ the Union Pacific company, and for
II bid any transfer or disposition there.
of in such wise as to continue it's con.
II troll, and should provide an injunct-
e ion against the payment of dividends
~ upon such stocks while this held eX
=. cept to a receiver to be appointed b!
e the court which shall collect and hole
e such dividends until disposed of b,
Ie the decree OF the court.
- AS the court below dismissed the
g government bill, it was unneces
sary there to consider the disposition
of the shares of stock acquired by tn,
Union Pacific company, which ac
+. QUESTION, we hold, constituted an un
lawful combination in violation of TIL
VI antitrust act.
ar! In order to effectually conclud
q. the operating force of the combina
Confined on mage eight