The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-12-01
Attorneys Make Pleas in Big
Separation Suit.
L. p. and $. p. Not Necessarily
Competitive Roads.
HEARING HELD IN ST. LOUIS
Atch1sOn Attorney Represents
Government in s. p. Case,
Santa Fe Subordinate Factor
in Big Fight.

st. Louis, Dec 1-Arguments were
10 begin before three federal circuit
Judges mere today in the case of the
government to separate the Central
Z dclIlc railway from the Southern Pa
CHIC The case was certified to the
circuit circuit judges by the district court of
Tiled, and the three judges TODAY
were to sit as the district court for
The judges hearing the arguments
We're to be Walker H. Sanborn of St
Paui; William c. Hook of Leaven-
worth, Kan, and Elmer B. Adams of
st. Louis.
James w. Orr counsel for the gov
erhnent, checked up the oral argu-
ment of Edward F. McClennen by re-
/ ierrlng to notes for the government
! ana for the Southern Pacific comuanv
cisco. --i L q
= case against the Southern Pa
cl1N was filed in February 1914 and
tL~ railway company filed its answer
va May OF the same year. Since then
aLnlner in all parts of the United
States.
| Ihe case for the government was
presented to the circuit judges by
Gu~ara f;~McClennan' of Boston, who
announced at the opening that tho
government would require the entire
oay Tor It's argument; that the rail-
way attorney also would want a dav
sdfy TO continue the argument on q
third day.
Statement of Facts.
MI McClennan began by stating
that on February 20, 1899, the South
erh racine company owned all the
STOCK of the Southern Pacific railway
which controlled lines from San Fra ~
CISCO TO New Orleans, connecting there
WIN steamer lines for New York and
mat the Central Pacific Railroad
company, formed in 1891 to sue
ceed the Central Pacific Railroad
company, owned line from san
r francisco to Ogden, connecting there
with the Union Pacific and the Den
yer and Rio Grande.
On February 20, 1899, said the |
was promulgated by which the Sontb-
ern Pac1flc company was to acuI,ire
all the stock of the Central Pacific
ana OF the Southern Pacific At that |
liIne me southern Pacific did not own
any stock in the Central Pacific but
these two roads had a monopolv of |
transcontlnental transportation to |
california incidentally we do not |
deenn II necessary to determine wheth
er the roads had a MONOPOLY. bu, |
merely whether they restrained com
merce.
Position of Defendant. 4
The position of the defendant rail- |
ways in this litigation may be sum
'One-The lines of the Southern L
FacIfic fmeaning the San Francisco Il
New Orleans Hne) and those of the Il
Central Pacific are not naturally com II
petitive.
Two-Competition between the II
two lines is not restrained
Ihree-The defendants have moi II
violated the Pacific railway laws. nv
against the Union Pa
CHIC (Mr. Mcclellan at this poin+ L
ald not specify the specific railroad
laws, but the reference was to the acts |
o1 congress under which the Central
Pacific and Southern Pacific were |
ouild.)
t1ve-The two lines were built and /
extended as one property
Slx-The United States is estopDed +!
RIM this litigation by its conduct in |
he settlement of the Central Pacific | |
Seven-The government is es |
Hnped by the decree in the Union pa
'ific merger cases.
tISHL-The government is barred |
~ the statute of limitations,
Mr.. Mcclellan began his Argument /
-galnst the contentious of ATTORNEYS | |
or the railways.
When the combination was made
IL 1887, he said, lit brought a mo- I
lopoly of tranScontinentaI ira fife To
no from California under one control
ne Atchlson, Topeka and Santa Fe
vas a subordinate factor south of Mo-
ave, Cal, and the vice president of |
ne Santa Fe testified that he did not |
ct much freight north of Tehachani |
ass"