Arizona republican., 1913-03-15
California - Railroad Com mission Not Certain That Union Pacific and South ern Pacific Are Not Try ing to EVadc Mandate
WILL ASK FOR
 COMPLETE DATA
Says It Cannot Understand Why New Traffic Agree mcntS Were Not Disclosed to Commission When the Matter Was Presented
ASSOCIATED PRESS DISPATCH l

ASSOCIATED PRESS DISPATCH
 SAN FRANCISCO. March 4-Lack-
 ing information upon which to base
 it's final opinion. the California Rail
 road Commission is s<epticai of the
 good faith in which the Union Pa cific submits it's modified plan for
 the dissolution of the Hartman
 merger of the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific properties in obc-
 dience to the decree of the United States supreme court
 In telegram to Attorney General McReynolds. the commission wrote today:
 The supreme court wants these lines to he unmergered and we will prevent. if We can. all combinations in such unmergerng.
 For the want of fuller data. the commission withholds it's approval. Continuing it's opinion, the commission wrote:
 We do not understand why, in fairness to this commission, the new traffic agreements were not disclosed to us when this matter was present. ed We assume. of course. that in these orders they were acting in good faith and expect to comply fully with tn" provisions of the con stitution and the statutes of Cali fornia so far applicable to their af fairs and it may be that our fear with reference tO this matter k un- founded
 If as a matter of fact, the design of the proposed new traffic agree ments, the terms of which We do not know, is not to crcumVent the pre- Vious decision of this commission then of course. what we have to say herein wll not at all interfere with l the unmergcring plan as amended. 1T on the other hand. the design is to evade the effect Of our former con i ditions. then we think we should pre-
 vent. the new plan from being con 1 sumated if within our power to do so. We do not understand why abso- 1 lutely open and frank dealings can 1 not he had with reference to these 1 matters We can not conceive any
 reason why the Southern Pacific or 1 Union Pacific. in keeping with the l mandate of the supreme court should not actually unmerEe and why there l should be any attempt to reserve to ! the Union Pacific any advantage or
 preference which would not be given l if dealing, so to speak. at arms | length with the Southern Pacific. 1 A matter in which the commission l does not feel itself fully informed is 1 the use made by the short line owned by the Southern Pacific between Oak i land, san Francisco. Bencia and Sac ramento, at which point the Central l In f is- connection a modified application was telegra phed by Robert $. LOVett, chairman of the executive board of the l Union Pacific which said:
 1 "A lease is desired by Central Pa
 cific company to Union Pacific com pany in the form proposed in the ap plication filed with the commission on l February 19 which covered all the property of the Central Pacific except
 the lines north of Tehama. A modi- fled agreement will eliminate all the provisions as to the joint use of the Benicia line. point where We use | terminals. trackage and running rights
 from Newark to Redwood and from
 Redwood to San Francisco. The lease
 of the Central Pacific to the Union Pa
 cific does not provide that the Central
 Pacific stock will be required in addi tion thereto, in order to secure neces-
 sary consent of the French Banks"
 The original agreement mentioned was for trackage rights. Between the 1 trackage rights and the traffic agree ments; however, the commission sees a difference which it maintains has not | been satisfactorily explained. Contn- ung it's opinion. the commission says:
 We have absolutely no objection to
 traffic arrangements whereby the Un- ion Pacific traffic is turned over to the Southern Pacific and conveyed thence
 to San Francisco over the Benicia line. , and the same may be said for the l | Union Pacific traffic originating at Bay , | Point. Yet. if such an agreement is desirable from the standpoint of the Southern Pacific, it certainly should be willing to perform like service
 for the Western Pacific (Gould line) or I any other competing line, for like pay
 ment and the Union Pacific, desiring l only service to be performed for it for } a stated compensation, of course can have no interest in preventing the southern Pacific from making more V money by performing for another line like traffic service for an adequate l consideration
 Q The supreme court wants these lines
 Continued on Page Eight)