New Britain herald., 1915-10-19
NEW HAVEN ROAD HAD CONN. LAWS
 MADE TO ORDER
Attorney Bats Claims System Obtained Repeal of Statutes
 Permitting Competitive Lines
TO BLOCK BRANCH OF
 CENTRAL NEW ENGLAND

Governments Counsel Tells How
 Meilen Approached Former Presi-
 dent Roosevelt Regarding Morse's
 S2O,OoO,OOO Offer for the New
 Haven Steamship Company's Lines
 Advised Sale of Property.
 New York, Oct. 19.-Robert l.. Bats, attorney for the government in the trial of William Rockefeller, and his ten co-defendants, charged with violating the Sherman law as direc- tors of the New York, New Haven and Hartford railroad, resumed today his uncompleted address to the jury.
 MT. Batts planned to take up more in detail the story of the alleged mo- nopolistic growth of the New Haven, the high spots of which he outlined yesterday. He made use again, to illustrate his remarks, of maps of the of it's expansion.
 Acquisition of Lines.
 Taking up the acquisition of lines in eastern Connecticut, MT. Batts charged that lines subsequently, called the peoples tramway were taken over in 1903 in order to prevent the pro- posed construction of a branch line to Long Island sound. Other lines in this section also were taken over and all were subsequently, combined under the name of the Consolidated Railway company, which itself was finally merged into the New Haven.
 One of these lines subsequently, talk ell over was the Hartford system, which made Batts charged, was bought at the excessive price of 2s5 for the stock and bonds. the.,.n-latter bearing five per cent. interest.
 Rhode Island Lines.
 The acquisition of the Rhode Island and his associates, said the attorney, was intended to prevent the building of @ contemplated high speed electric line from Boston to Providence which would compete with the New Haven This line, MT. Batts explained, could not be built without the consent of the Rhode Island lines, which had ex- elusive rights in Providence Although the properties in question were en- cumbered with debt and unable to pay dividend, they were nevertheless bought for $21 1,0OO,000 he said, when actually worth not one-tenth of that amount. The sum of $1,000,000, he said, was put back into the treasury of the properties by the sellers, to make it appear that itw sa a going concern. This $1,000,0O0 was used up in less than two years, declared the attorney.
 Early Railroad Situation.
 Reverting to the early railroad sit- uation. the attorney described the competitive railroad service enjoyed by the large New England cities be- fore the New Haven consultations be- gan.
 He mentioned the Central New England road as an early competitor of the New England, which when it wanted to construct an additional line was hindered by the New Haven through restraining suit, from using a right of way By this action the Central was obliged to build it's road around farm instead of through it. The Central eventually came under the control of the New Haven, under the so-called Corsair agreement, which divided tlte territory of New England between, the New Haven and the Boston and Maine, with the Bos- ton and Albany as a dividing line.
 Agreement Illegal.
 This agreement, MT. Bates charac- terized as illegal, in that it prevented the proper and natural development of railroad growth as intended by the Sherman law. AS MT. Batts proceed ed to expound the intent of the law at some length, R. V. Lindabury of coun- sel for the defense interrupted.
 Isn't it proper that we should re- ceive the law from the court?" he asked.
 "I beg your pardon" said MT. Batts. 'I never made an opening statement before. I did rot mean to infringe and do not intend to take any unfair advantage"
 Joy Steamship Company.
 Taking up the acquisition of the Joy Steamship company, the attor- ney said that the company was "so harassed by the New Haven that the line came to a realization that it could not longer continue in busi- ness.' As a result, he said, they made an agreement with the New Haven fixing rates and limiting business. Eventually, said the attorney, MT. Mellen called the attention of the di- rectors to the fact that such an agree ment was illegal and that it would