Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1913-01-06
UNION PACIFIC PLAN OF
DISSOLUTION REJECTED

Washington. Jan. g--Thc supreme
court to-day held that the plan ad
Ninced b. the Union Pacific attor-
neys ~ dlsposing Of the entire stock
h"idings ~ the Union Pocinc EaN.
road company IN the Southern Pacin,
company hy transfer 10 the stock
holders ~ tho Union Pacific COM
pnny would not 80 cficctuaily end the
Inien Pacific merger a. 10 comply
with itr dissolution decree.
Union Pacific attorneys claimed foI
abe Union Pacific stockholders the
exCluHire privilege of taking ovar the
si2G.G5o.09O worth Of Southern Pa
cihc stock.
Union Pacific attorneys claimed
for the Union Pacific stockholders the
exclusive privilege OF taking over the
3i2S.C5o. Gee worth OF southern Pa
cific stock. which S4se supreme court
found the Union Pacific Railroad
company owns In violation % the
Sherman antitrust law
Attorney General Wickeraham OPP
posed any plan that gave he Union
Pacific stockholders an exclusive
privilege OF bgying the Southern Pa
riflc ~ * On question.
He was willing % approve. however.
plan for the Union Pacific stock
holders 20 share in the distribution
with the Southern Pacific storkhoid-
ers other than the Union Pacific Rail
road company.
Announcing the decision Of the
court today. Justico Day said
"The proposal To- distribute the
stock among the shareholders 81 the
Union Pacific company or 90 sell the
stock 20 such shareholders " granted,
win in emect transfer the stock from
the Oregon short Lane company.
which now holds it Tor the Union
Pacific company 10 the shareholders
who own and control the latter com
pany. The court Is OF the opinion
thai this distribution 81 sale cannot
be ordered. The ultimate determine
tion Of the AFFAIRS OF corporation
rests with ~ stockholders ana ariscs
from their power 90 choose the gov
crning board OF directors. After such
distribution as is now proposed, the
stockholders OF thc UnioE Pacific
company may dominate and control
not only the Union Pacihc company.
but the Southern Pacific as well.
I'm rejecting the proposal for the
transfer Of the southern Pacific
conpany's stock held for the Union
Pacific company lcither ly distribu-
tion among OF sale 10 the stockhold-
crs OF the Union Pacific company We
do not mean 90 preclude the district
court from considering and acting
upon plans which may be- submitted
fa Il under the former opinion ana
decree OF the court We are at the
opinion. however. and now hold that
the Proposed plan OF disposition 81
she entire siockholding of the Union
Pacific company in the Southern Pa
ciHc company by transfer Go tho
STOCKHOLDERS 81 the Union Pacific
company win not ~ effectually end
the combination as GO comply with
the decree heretofore ordered 60 be
entered ~ this court
Railrund attorneys had held that
t'niun Pacific shareholders should be-
recognized as qualified buyers 81
southern Pacific stock "in order that
they may nave an opportunity 90 pro-
tect theuaelyea against q sacrifice 81
this valuable asset covered by invest
ineni They claimed that the goo
called controlling interest ln the
talon Facinc held only 13 per cent
~ the stock Of the Union paCi0c and
therefore would ho able 90 boy only
per cent ~ the total capitalization
~ the Southern Pacific company
Attorney General Wiekershnm held
that IN the interest ~ competition tho
TWO sets 81 Stockholders shorld share
in buying tho disputed stock.