The evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1914-1922, 1917-03-10
DECISION REVIEWS HISTORY
or TWO DEFENDANT ROADS

hlNlAiH AEAlAfNA ANAt hhHA'h 'AANtH kNN~
ernment in liz suit TO compel the
southern Pacific 10 sell It's control IN
the Central Pacinc rails sct- iurth that
the two roads were operated on a
continuous line and that all the re-
quifements regarding trains. sched-
ulos. freight and passenger service
had been met AZ "A result. the de-
cision. copy of which was received
here today hy clerk John W. Chrisiy
of the federal court oi this city. from
81. Louis. where the decision was
mndo. states there is no evidence tc
support the petition Of the govern
ment. The decision was not unnn-
imuus one. Judge John y. Garland
dissenting The decision Of Judge
Garland il 20 the effect that the SUI
preme court of the United states had
decided similar case. 10 Wit: The
Union Pacific and the Southern Pa
cine. thereby preventing merger.
The decision reviews the history %
the two defendan, railroads; the man
uer In which they operated almost AZ
similar lines Tor q great many years
and the ownership by the southern
Pacific Of many spurs, feeders and
other railroad property actually with
in the Central Pacific system. Further
it says that the consolidation Of the
southern Pacihc and Central Pacific
actually began IN 1870, before the
sherman anti-trust law, under which
the petition was brought was en-
acted
whatever immunity or exemption
from the operation OF the ANTITRUST
act the preparatory relation existing
prior to the passage says the decis-
ion. was not destroyed by the change
in the position of the parties erected
by the lease OF 1855 Nor did the
amendment of the lease Ia immaterial
! respects in 1888 create a new starting
point The application of the anti
trust act cannot be made To rest on
such considerations.
"It has been contonded that the
control oi the Central pacinc line from
/ san Frnncisco 10 ogden hy the south
crn Pacific is In violation OF the Pa
cinc railroads act The proofs show
mo- foundation in fact tor this conten-
/ ton. when this suit was brought and
since the line was being maintained
aud operated In every particular re-
guircd as purt of the continuous
railroad from the Missoeri river To the
Pacific coast. In con junction with
the Union Pacinr there were through
rates aud through billiue- and
through ffci-hr. passenger and mai
thain-.
There were no criticisms of th'
track the service cor the schedule. tn
government and the public were be
ing served adequately These statute
Irequire phy steal connection w'th M
Union Pacific 90 make the thr"uSi
lline ana the furnishing of eQuni ad
vantages and facilities as to rates
ltime and transportation without dis
Termination OF any kind. II those re
laurements were met IL does not seen
material whether they are performed
10y the southern pacific ar the iesse
or stockholders or hy the central Pa
ciuc independently. The petition
dismissed
The attitude of Judge Garland, IN
dlsseuting member of the cireul
court Is strikinply In opposition :
the decision handed down hy tn
other two judges 1t Is difficult
determine from the opinion az IA
majority exactly upon what sroun
Inr grounds the bin In this case o. dl'
missed" says Judge Garland. d
/ not hink that the evidence SNOW
\ that the Central Pnclhc and the soutf
- Crn pacinc we're created originally an
% have always continued lease ~
tenn.