Norwich bulletin., 1915-12-02


 Then, there came up the question as to whether the transfer of the New London Northern would be a violation of the Sherman law. The American Tobacco case was then pending in the United States supreme court and Ed ward D. Robbins, one of the defend ants and the New Haven's general counsel, was asked to give an opinion. He wrote that the New London North ern and the New Haven touched points in common only within the state of Connecticut and if the Sherman law was interpreted as he thought it ! ought to be. the sale was legal. But he added, no lawyer could give com- petent advice on the sherman law and should the ruling of the lower court in the American Tobacco case be ad- hered to, there is not a single rail- road ir the United States that is not held together in violation of the act.H
 Mellen Willing to Drop the Matter. After further correspondence, Mel | len wrote he was willing to drop the | matter, but a month later he wrote again to Hays saying that the late | J. P. Morgan had had an interview | with Sir Charles Rivers Dilson then | president of the Grand Trunk on the New London Northern proposition and that Morgan wanted Hays and l Mellen tn get together and arrange certain traffic matters. Mellen add 1 cO InaI He uluH knOW IlIGn aDOut what Morgan and Sir Charles had 1 talked about and asked for light. Hays wrote back that he had taken Sir Charles to see Morgan and that Morgan wanted to know why the Grand Trunk president was unwilling | to keep an old promise to sell the New London Northern.
 T didn't know" testified Mir. Mel len when questioned on the subject, anything about this old understand 1 ing. But later I was present at meeting between MT. Morgan, MT. Smithers (Alfred W. Smithers, chair man of the Grand Trunk), ATr. Cham i herlan (Edson. Jr.. who succeeded WiIsorl and MT Morgan acknowledg- ! ed that' he always understood that London Northern and wanted to know l why it wasn't carried out"
 Finally in 1910, after Mellen had again written that Morgan ''has taken me to task for not seeing you" Hays and Mellen had their interview with Lewis Cass Ledyard, one of the de- | fendants, present.
 | Palmer to Providence Line.
 "Thc interview was very pleasant" | said the witness, "and MT. Hays made | some very good suggestions. Shortly ] after that I heard that Hays had | taken action to build his line from | Palmer to Providence. No one would I interview that without further notifi- cation to myself. he would have un- dertaken steps to start that line" End of Grand Trunk Negotiations. | This ended for the time being the negotiations with the Grand Trunk and the government got no further in the l case today. The defense however, used MT. Meilen in incidental exam nation, to bring out that the apparent reason for the desire of the New Ha- ven to eliminate the Grand Trunk from the New England situation was to give that territory lower rates.
 MT. Mellen had testified that the | Grand TT unlS, on account of it's long haul to points west had been allowed a differential by the Trunk line asso- citation and if was proposed by MT. Mel1en to the the Trunk line presi- dents to abolish this differential by putting all rates out of New England on the same basis as that of New
 York.
 | "Grand Trunk People Pirates"
 The Grand Trunk people were pi- rates" remarked the witness, and we always had to give pirates the lower rate"
 "You wouldn't call them pirates,
 would you ?' interrupted R. V. Lind abury of the defense.
 well, cutting rates and cutting
 threats are just the same to me"
 MelIen Explained Rates. MT. Mellen then explained that the
 rates for eastbound freight to Bos- ton were higher than they were to
 New York and the westbound lower
 and that his proposal was, with the
 consent of the Grand Trunk, to put all
 on an equal basis, which would have
 cost the New Haven several millions
 of dollars a year but saved that much
 to New England manufacturers. The
 reduction of the eastbound rate would
 have absorbed the advance in the
 westbound rate two and half times
 over, he said. It was to placate the
 Grand Trunk he explained, that he
 proposed to Hays joint traffic ar
 engagements with the New Haven as a
 part of the bargaining for the New | London road.
 On the alleged understanding later reached between Mellen, Smithers and
 Chamberlin, all three were indicted by the federal grand jury in New York
 under the Sherman law, but never
 brought to trial.
 II Mariden-The Meriden house i,inrlx