The Eureka sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1902-current, 1912-12-07

last year as the final authority on the
Interpretation of the Sherman Anti
trust ACT. He pointed to the decisions
before the Standard Oil and tobacco
cases as being approved in those cases
and then proceeded to apply to this
merger the principles discussed in all
these decisions.
Law Reaches Combinations
I'VE take it in this connection. !" he
said, ''that it may be regarded as set
tied that q combination which places
railroads engaged in interstate COM
merce in such relation as to create a
single dominating control in one COR
poration whereby natural and existing
competitor in interstate IN is un-
duly restricted or suppressed, is within
condemnation Of the act. While the
law may not be able to enforce compe.
tition, it can reach combinations which
rendered competition impracticable.
"Nor do we think it can make. any
difference that instead of reporting to a
holding company, as was done in the
Northern Securities case. the controlling
interest in the stock of one corporation
is transferred to the other. The domi-
nation and control and the power to
suppress competition are acquired in
the one case no less than in the other,
and the resulting mischief. at which the
statute was aimed. is equally effective
whichever form is adopted"
He added that q 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 railroads
hoped to defeat the Governments suit.
He first considered the argument that
the systems were not competitors. but
partners.
"To compete" said the Justice. sis
to strive for something which another
Is actively seeking and wishes to gain"
Big Roads Are Competitors
He quoted the testimony of railroad
men that this was what the Union Pa
cifc and Southern Pacific were doing
at the time of the purchase. Oompe-
tition as to rates was not the only aim
Of the law, he explained. but there was
competition as to the character Of SER
vice rendered and accommodations af.
forded. He said that it made no diff
ference that rates were not raised for
the time being after the combination
was effected.
at ia the scope of such combinations
and their power to suppress and stife
competition or create a monopoly which
determine the applicability Of the act"
Justice Day declared.
The arguments that the competitive
tract was ininitessimal he dismissed
with the statement that it amounted to
many millions of dollars.
Next he took up the argument that
the Union Pacific was only a
ing road and really had no line TO San
Francisco, but was dependent upon the
Southern Pacific for such terms as it
could make over the old Central Pacific
line from Ogden to San Francisco. He
said that that was going too far; that
the Union Pacifc's Portland route was
aua;laAla and IL 4onld hava haan datri
mental to the Southern Pacific to have
declined an arrangement to carry the
Union Paciic's business from Ogden to
San Francisco.
but this case is not to be decided on
the theory" he continued s'that only so
much Of the Southern Pacific sy stem as
operates between Ogden and San Fran
cisco has been acquired. The purchase
may be judged by what in fact it has
accomplished and the natural and rrob-
able consequences of that which was
done. Because it would have been law
ful to gain. by purchase or otherwise, an
entrance into California over the old
Central Pacific. does not render it legal
to acquire the entire system, largely en-.
gagged in interstate commerce, in compe-
tition with the purchasing road"
Justice Day replied to the argument
that a majority Of the stock had not
been purchased and therefore uo con
troll had been acquired. He quoted
Hartman as saying that q compact.
united ownership of 46 per cent of a big