The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-12-02

matter of law. it was held that the
two could not De competitors because
the Union Pacific had to depend upon
the Southern Pacific to get from Og-
den to San Francisco and upon indie
pendent railroads tobring freight and
passengers from the east to it at Kan
sas City and Omaha. In so finding,
the court concluded the Union Pacific's
line from Ogden through Portland TO
San Francisco was impractieable-
Third Time Charm.
Weight was given by the majority of
the court to the testimony for the rail-
roads that the purchase was made, not
to throttle competition, but to prevent
the Union Pacific being bottled up at
Ogden. It was said that Mr.. Hartman,
acting for the Unoin Pacific, first tried
to purchase from the Southern Pacific
the old Central Pacific line, extending
from Ogden to San Francisco. In this,
he failed. Then he entered into nego-
tiations with c. p. Huntington for the
purchase of a large block of the South
ern Pacifics stock. In that, too, he
failed. After Mr. Huntington died, eff
forts We're renewed The Gould inter-
ests We're said to have been a rival bid
der. This time, Mr.. Hartman was sue
cessful. The motive of the Union Pa
cific, it was insisted, was merely to
have q friendly outlet to San Fran
cisco.
The government also complained that
the two systems, the Union Pacific and
the Southern Pacific, wer6 competitors
for business from Atlantic seaboard
and interior points of the country, on
the one hand, and to Portland, Ore, on
the other; between the Atlantic sea-
board on the one hand, and Colorado
and Utah common points on the other;
between Portland on the one hand, and
Utah, Colorado and Nevada comr1on
= y ~.
cisco on one Land and Portland on the
other; between San Francisco on the
one hand, and Montana and Idaho COM |
mon points on the other; between New
York and interior common points on |
the one hand, and the Orient on the |
other.
In each of these subordinate COM |
plants, the majority of the court found |
that the business of each of the rail- |
roads to the respective areas in ques- |
ton constituted so small a percentage /
of their total traffic that it would not |
be taken as the basis for a substantial |
restraint on interstate commerce
Denounced by Hook.
The test which the majority applied |
in the subordinate complaints and in
the test determining whether the rail-
roads were competitors was denounced
by Judge Hook as probably allowing
the Union Pacific to purchase lawfully |
control of all the great parallel rail-
road systems of the United States.
Another complaint was addressed to
the construction of the San Pedro, Los
Angeles & Salt Lake railroad. De-
PENDANT Clark and his associates start
ed to build a road to connect Los An
seles and Salt Lake City and so did
the Union Pacific. Because of the al
legged impracticability of constructing
two lines through the canyon known
as meadow Valley WASH one road
was built, the court found. each group
of promoters taking one-half the stock
The entire court found nothing viola
tive of the Sherman antitrust law in
the Union Pacific's control of this road.
The government complained of the
purchase by the Union Pacific of con-
trolling stock in the Northern Pacific
The court declared it was
only necessary to say the Union Pa
cific had sold that stock,
Still another complaint was the pur-
chase in 1904 by Defendants Hartman,
Rogers, Stillman, Schiff, Kahn and
William Rockefeller of $50. 900 600 in
face value of the stock of the Atchi-
son, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway COM
pany and the investment in 1906 by
the Union Pacific in per cent of that I
stock. The court found no proof that
any control was thus obtained over
the rival Santa Fe.
Thus defeated in the circuit court,
the government brought the case to !
the supreme court. Attorney General |
Frank B. Kellogg and
Cordenio A. Severance appeared for
the government. A long list of attor- .
neys headed by p. F. Dunno, of San
Francisco. and n. H. LOOMS, of ]
Omaha. represented the defendants.
Causes FURRY in Stocks.
New York, Dec. 2.-When news was .
.eceived. on the stock exchange of the i
victory in the Union Pa ;
.ific merger suit, Union Pacific stocks {
lropped , Z points and Southern Pa
life declined points Other active
ssues declined in sympathy. Strong I
upport was accorded the Hartman e
ssues, however, and they soon rallied, n