New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-02-25
j. P. DISSOLUTION PLAN
FOUGHT IN j. S. COURT
Fairness of Proposed Stock Dis
tribution Questioned by Coun-
sci for Western Pacific.
CUTOFF SCHEME OPPOSED
Arrangement for Use of Benicia
Short Line Would Perpetuate
the Monopoly, 1t Is Argued
at St. Louis.

St Louis. Feb. 2f-Thc stock distribu-
ton plan for the dissolution of tho Union
Pacific Southern Pacific merger which
had been agreed upon by counsel for the
Hartman lines and Attorney General
Wickcrsham was criticised here to-day in
arguments before the federal judges who
must pass on the scheme before il can
become effective.
The objection to the stock distribution
plan was entered in the arguments late
to-day by r. w. VI. Cutcheon. counsel for
tho Western Pacific Railway Company.
As the Western Pacific was not party
10 the original suit It's attorney was al
lowed to appear to-day only as a
friend" In this capacity he was intro
duced by Attorney General Wickersham,
who explained the dissolution plan 10 the
Judges. but made no extended argument
as 10 It's merits.
Mr.. Cutcheon again urged that the dis
solution plan be so modified that the
Southern Pacific shares Of the Union IA
cific be placed on the market ana so!d
10 any one who would buy
The clause in the dissolution plan pro-
yidinc for the exclusive use of the Be
nicla cutoff. the short line between OAK
land. Cal. and Sacramento. by the South
crn Pacific and the Union Pacific. also
was denounced by Mr.. Cutcheon.
Maxwell Ewarts. counsel for the Sou'h-
ern Pacific, i'm discussing this phase Of the
plan. said:
THE Southern Pacific is willing to
grant TO the Western Pacific whatever
rights il now has over the Benicia cut
off. These rights the Southern Pacihc 3
willing to perpetuate.
This offer did not satisfy the attorney
for the Western Pacific. who. in the clos
ing argument Of the day. condemned the
MAN for the exclusive use of the cut-off
nv the Union Pacific and Southern Pa
cidc lines as rendering opportunities Tor
an evasion of the antitrust law as com
plctely as could be devised.
This plan" he continued. "was devised
for the purpose Of assuring the eNciu-
sive use by those roads OF this cutoff n
competition between the Union PACING
and the Southern Pacific is a good thing
why not competition between four
roads,
Under the dissolution plan me cutoff,
which now is the property Of the Cen
trail Pacific, is TO go into the hands OF
the Union Pacific BY the transfer of the
Central Pacific TO the Union Pacific ana
the present contract by which the Central
Pacific gives the Southern Pacific the
right 10 use the cutoff is TO be perpet-
uatcd.
The plan for the exclusive use OF the
cutoff by the two Hartman lines appar-
entity greatly interested the court, for
Judge Hook asked John G. Milburn, at
tornev for the Union Pacific. If the con-
troll of the Central Pacific by the Union
Pacific would not perpetuate the present
monopoly.
Mr.. Milburn replied in The negative.
stating that any railroad might 60 be-
fore the Interstate Commerce Commission
on the California Railroad Commission
and ask for rights over the cutoff.
In interrogating the attorneys about
this feature Of the plan Judge Hook said
Il do not want this decree TO become a
judicial travesty.'
Attorney General Wicbersham. In OK
planning the plan TO the judges, said he
did not think there was danger Of mo-
nopoly because there was no dominant
personality. like Hartman. in the roads
to bring it about. Besides. he said. the
Sherman antitrust law is equal TO any
emergency.