New Britain herald., 1914-07-23

CIVIL SUIT FILED FOR DISSOLUTION OF
 NEW HAVEN ROAD
(Continued from First Page.)

(Continued from First Page.)
 Hadley, James H. Hustis, Edwin N. Sanderson, Francis Blossom, Seton Porter, H. Hobart Porter, Richmond Talbot, Wynn Merdith.
 New Haven's Big Hand.
 The brief declares that the New Haven has in twenty years spread it's hand over all New England so that
 it has an illegal monopoly of practi- cally all the steam, trolley and steam
 ship transportation avenues that pen-
 citrate that section. It charges that
 in this period the New Haven has ac-
 quired control of nine of it's ten rail- roads, twenty-two of the thirty boat
 lines and almost all of the trolleys
 in New England. It ayers that the
 defendant controls 6,541 miles of main
 line railroad with passenger and freight earnings of $121, ,069,411 out of 8 total steam rail mileage of S,233
 With earnings of s130,3S9,195 and that
 of the 1892 miles not under it's con- trol only All miles are in compe- tition with the New Haven. The rail lines, it says, earn about ninety-one per cent of the gross freight revenue and about ninetyfive per cent. of the gross passenger revenues of all New England railroads. Through it's boat lines, the bill says. the New Haven controls about eighty-fiv per cent. of the water transportation of New England and the lines it does not con- trol are declared to be unim portant. Of 1925 miles of trolleys in this sec ton, the bill says the New Haven con- trols about 1.500 miles, having 91 per cent. of the mileage and traf" fic.
 Used Elusive Methods.
 According to the bill, from this con- trol by one system there has resulted:
 Unreasonable delay in delivering freight the use of inferior and un- safe rolling stock, the lack of proper signal systems and safety devices; the destruction of the autonomy in rate making of the units now combined, the suppression of competition among these units, the diversion of freight traffic to the New Haven company, an effort to increase freight rates and dilatory and arbitrary methods in dealing with patrons.
 In perfecting it's hold on New Eng land, the bill says, the New Haven has made use of complicated and elusive methods to conceal the real nature of its efforts to create a monopoly, has acquired control and purchased competitors, has resorted to illegal practices to impoverish rival lines and thus acquire them itself.
 The bill asks for specific relief from this condition and prays the court to order the sale to persons not stockholders, agents or otherwise connected with the New Haven of all it's interests in the Boston and Maine Railroad company, in the Rutland Railroad company, in the New Eng land Railroad company and in all the wharves and water terminals ac- quired by it, and asks for a perma- nent injunction to prevent their re- turn to New Haven control. It also asks for an order directing the can cellation of a joint lease between the New Haven and the New York Gen. tral Railroad by which the profits of operating the Boston & Albany road are shared. This lease, the New Haven declared months ago it had cancelled, and if the court finds this action to have been taken it will not be necessary to press for this order. The bill includes also the customary prayer for general relief" by which the court is requested to take any steps it deems necessary to restore competition to New England.
 The bill has been under prepara- tion by the department of justice for nearly a year. It is an exhaustive analysis of the rise of the New Haven system covering more than 100 printed pages It is accompanied by a series of maps designed to show the com- petition which existed in New Eng land in 1893 and the lack of competi- tion now. According to these maps in 1893 there were scores of towns in New England served by more than one transportation system, where now there are hardly more than a dozen such towns, many of which are small | and practically all of them on the 1 lines of Crank Trunk and the Yer mont Central which the New Haven, l the brief says, often has tried to ac- quire.
 Development of Transportation.
 A feature of the bill is it's history of the development of transportation in New England up to and l beyond the point where the l New Haven is declared to have reached out to seize it all The brief contains what purports to be a | copy of an agreement made on March l G. 1893, at the home of the late J. { Pierpont Morgan in New York be- | tween representatives of the New Ha- | ven and the Boston and Maine Rail- 1 road, then the two dominant factors 1 in New England transportation. By l that agreement, subsequently ap- l proved by the directors of both roads, 1 the Boston and Maine agreed to keep l out of the territory south of the 1 Boston and Albany Railroad which | runs across the center of Massachu- l setts, but to approve the acquisition l of lines in that territory by the New 1 Haven. The New Haven in turn