The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-12-20
UNION AND SOUTHERN PACIFIC

| IL is not easy 10 see why Attorney
| General Wickershsm should object TO
the proposal of Judge Lovett in behalf
of the stockholders Of the Union
Pacific, that they should receive pro
rata from the. Union Pacific Company
/ the stock of the Southern Pacific which
the Union Pacific owns, This stock
is clearly the property of the stock
holders Of the Union Pacific under
the decree of discouncction made by
the court. Judge Lovett presents the
case fairly and squarcly. and as
matter Of fact there is no other possible
destination for that Southern Pacific
stock owned by the Union Pacific
company except TO transfer il proper
t'onatelg 10 the stockholders of the
Union Pacific. since the proposal TO
dispose OF il for the common benefit
fails. Where else could it no9 And in
citing the Northern Securities case as
a proccndcnt Judge Lovctt is clearly
rl2ht. because the stock in that holding
company was distributed 10 the stock.
holders of the Northern Pacific and
OF the Great Northern proportiona;cly
as the personal ownership was defined,
1t had been announced in The
financial papers in New York ,ha
arrangements were complete whereby
this stock was 10 be handled as a
whole The statement WAS that the
sale OF this stock was 70 bc made .o
friendly interests Of the Union Pacific. |
"nich would require the substitution
oil other collateral wherever Southern
Pacltic stock is deposited behind obi. |
cations OF the Union Pacific svstcm
And " was stated that ARRANGEMENTS |
haa Already been made by the off. |
Gals OF the Union Pacific to sell IFS |
hoidlugs Of Southern Pacific stoc, 70 |
friendly interests. Various suggestions
were made as TO what would be done
win the proceeds Of this sale II |
appears, however, that this programme
was abandoned, Therefore. the Union
racine holds the stock, but is forbidden
oY the court to hold it. What. tbcn
was TO be done with that Southern
Pacific stock? Judge Lovett saws
nand Vt over TO the stockholders of
the Union Pacific Company. whose
property that Southern Pacific stock Il
really is.
lnere can be no doubt of the equity
and business justice of this form Of
lisposing OF the Union Pacific
southern Pacific stock. If that stock
$ not TO be sold foT the benefit of
he Union Pacific as companv nor
'Pportloned TO the Union Pacific etocl
loIders, what would the ATTORNEY
'eneral nave done with it! Surely
lie would hardly claim that il is subioci
% confiscatiou.
we do not believe that there will be
my objection on the part of the r.
;, Supreme Court to judge Love,ts
1t is in direct line with
he distribution Of stock in the Gran.
Northern Securities case. and is IN
act, the only thing left 10 do with
t II the plan 10 sell it for the benefit
u the Union Pacific Company !.
ound imprscticable.
me r'enls OF property as affected bv
Individual interests are not HkcIy 70
'e trespassed upon by the court. md
o We look to see the motion OF iuJoe
.ovett to have the Supreme ConIt
peedily determine the disposition to
'e made OF this stock placed on tho
alandar and dealt with by the comrt
an equitable as well as speed
manner 'Peeu!
The reason why the proposition n
ell the Southern Pacific stock in bplI;
o friendly interests for the beuefit n
ne Union Pacific Company, we have
Iot seen stated. But it is not easy
o make deals Of this kind and rnaiiln
p them as the parties IN interest