The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-07-10

| department of justice at Washington against this corporati 1n. although it has agreed to part with the properties. hay 1 ing made that agreement with the Attor-
 ney General.
 In Washington. as well in this city, it has not been possible to obtain a sat isfactory statement of the reasons which
 have in the wisdom of the Massaehu-
 sets legislature, persuaded that pooy u
 act as 1t recently has done. Whatever
 be the reasons the recent leglsiatloh
 seems to have put in peril the agreement
 between the Attorney General and the New Haven Railroad company and no' because of any mistake or mfsunderstand-
 ing or fault of either Of thees parties. A Prolonged Contest
 Unless there be some composition of this embarrassment before July b the New
 Haven railroad will be compelled to de-
 fend the suit which will be brought by 1 the Attorney General. Sometimes wonder has been expressed that the New Haven
 mana cement did not venture at the begin- ming to test the issue with the depart
 ment of justice. Some of the ablest law yers of Boston, of New York and of l Washington have always been persuaded l that the chances are that the courts would decide that the New Haven company did not violate the federal statutes when it secured control of the Boston and Maine property.
 TLese opinions, however, are conditional
 uson the view that the supreme court | O. Washington may take upon the ques- | ton of monopoistic control. Excepting ] in few trifllng instances the New Haven l Raii1ood company's lines do not parallel ] those of the Boston and Maine, nor are 1 these lines in the usual meaning of the i term competitive. The Boston and Maine fal1a tl..til haa t. ] erly and northwesterly from Boston and through leased reaches as far west as the West Shore railroad near Schenec- tady.
 Or the other hand, elawyers say that the supreme court might ind that the con trol of these two New England railroad Systems by one central authority created true monopolistic conditions In the New
 England territory.
 Should the court reach judgment of that kind opportunity would be given to 1t to furnish it's view of what real, dan gerous monopoly and what normal and on the whole healthful monopoly in railway
 control and management is.
 What Is Monopoly
 At one time or another the courts have, at least inferentially, admitted that every railroad company Is, in a certain way, a monopoly and cannot help acquiring that cnaracter1stlc. In the proceedings which resulted in the compulsory dissolution of the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific railroad systems the decision was based
 upon the view that these two Pacific lines were naturally competing lines and that it was for the welfare of the public that that competition be maintained. But in the case of the Boston and Maine and the New Haven companies the court will be compelled to consider whether the two systems are naturally competing, or else to pass judgment upon the question: Would a union of these two systems re- suit in the creation of a monopoly from which the public should be protected? If the New Haven company is com relled to go into court it is certain to make the best defense possible, although there is no doubt that at this time the
 new management of the New Haven
 property would be glad if there could be
 peaceful separation of the Boston and
 Maine from the New Haveh If the New
 Haven company could get back the
 money which it paid for it's Boston and
 Maine interests it would be glad to part
 with the property on those terms. The litigation, if it Is to be begun and carried on, should be of great importance
 to railroad interests all over the United
 States for 1t would offer an opportunity