Court Opinion

ID: 9304636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:15:43.179128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:50.940516
License: Public Domain

ADAMS, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [ 1 ] To bring any transaction within the condemnation of the first section of the anti-trust law, it must be a contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of interstate or international commerce. This restraint *110must be substantial in character and the direct and immediate effect of -the transaction complained of. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 211, 20 Sup. Ct. 96, 44 L. Ed. 136, and cases cited. The most important feature of the complaint in this case, and the one chiefly relied upon by counsel for the government in support of their contentions, is the purchase in 1901 by the Union Pacific Company of a controlling interest in the capital stock of the Southern Pacific Company. Its consequences are alleged to have been the destruction or restriction of free competition in transcontinental commerce. Whether such consequences followed depends upon whether these companies were or could have been independent and substantial competitors before the transaction in question occurred. Kimball v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (C. C.) 46 Fed. 888. Most obviously, if they were not and could not then have been such competitors, the securing of control of both by one did not destroy or stifle competition. Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 331, 24 Sup. Ct. 436, 48 L. Ed. 679.
The question then is: Was the line of the Union Pacific Company, extending only from Omaha and Kansas City on the east to Ogden on the west a competing line prior to 1901 for transcontinental business with the Southern Pacific Company, whose line extended from New York on the east over the sea to New Orleans, and thence by rail to San Francisco and Portland on the west? The question is not. whether it constituted a continuous line over which traffic might possibly be moved from the Atlantic seaboard or interior to the Pacific Coast, but whether it constituted a feasible route over which it could enter naturally and profitably into competition with the Southern Pacific route for that traffic.
Claim is not made that it was such a competitor for any business originating on or near to its main line, but only for business originating in New York or Pittsburg- common points, 1,000 or more miles away from its line. Its traffic between New York and interior points, on the one hand, and Portland, Or., on the other, was of trifling importance, amounting for the fiscal year preceding the purchase of the Pluntington stock to only 0.46 per cent, of its total tonnage. -Accordingly its competitive relation to the Southern Pacific route with respect to traffic in and out of San Francisco, the chief gateway for transcontinental business, will first be considered.
It had a connection at Granger with its subsidiary lines, the Oregon Short Fine and the Oregon Railroad & Navigation Fine, extending to Portland, and there with a line of steamboats irregularly and infrequently running between that port and San Francisco. 'But, this detour through Portland and over the sea was long, unreliable, and unsatisfactory, and afforded no opportunity for fair and remunerative competition with the Southern Pacific for San Francisco trade. It was about 1,700 miles in length, as against 800 miles in direct line from Ogden to San Francisco. In fact, prior to 1901 it had never been employed in any substantial way as an outlet for the Union Pacific’s west-bound freight into San Francisco. It is inconceivable, therefore, that the Huntington stock was purchased to prevent, or had the *111effect of preventing, in any substantial way, free competition with so devious and impracticable a route.
We shall accordingly dismiss it from further consideration so far as transcontinental business is concerned, and pass to the important question upon which argument was concentrated: Whether the right, privilege, or practice, whatever it may have been, of connecting with the rails of the Southern Pacific at Ogden and of using that company’s line between Ogden and San Francisco, together with the right, privilege, or practice of connecting at Omaha and Kansas City with the lines of other railroads, which by themselves and by successive connections led to the points of origin of the traffic, constituted the Union Pacific a competitor of the Southern Pacific for that traffic. It is certain the Union Pacific by itself could do none of that business. It extended neither to its origin nor destination. It depended For success upon its connections with other railroads at the east and'with its alleged competitor at the west end of its own line.
[2] Prior to the enactment of the provisions of the fourth section of the act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. pt. 1, p. 590 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1159]) known as the “Hepburn Act,” there was no way of coercing railroad companies into establishing through routes or joint rates with each other. In Southern Pacific v. Interstate Com. Com., 200 U. S. 536, 553, 26 Sup. Ct. 330, 334, 50 L. Ed. 585, the Supreme Court speaking of a time antedating the Hepburn act, said:
“It is conceded that tlie different railroads forming a continuous line of road are freo io adopt or refuse to adopt joint through tariff rates. The commerce act recognizes such right, and provides for the filing with the commission of the through tariff rates, as agreed upon between the companies. The whole question of joint through tariff rates, under the provisions of the act, is one of agreement between the companies, and they may, or may not, enter into it, as they may think their interests demand. And it is equally plain that an initial carrier may agree upon joint through rates with one or several connecting carriers, who between each other might be regarded as competing roads. It is also undoubted that the common carrier need not contract to carry beyond its own line, hut may there deliver to the next succeeding carrier, and thus end .its responsibility, and charge iis local rate for the transportation. If it agree to transport beyond its own line, it may do so by such lines as it chooses.”
Whether, therefore, the great Eastern lines and their connections, which gathered up the west-bound freight, should favor the Union Pacific, the Southern Pacific, or the Santa Eé routes, as their final connection into San Francisco, was optional with them. If they favored the Union Pacific, the terms of their arrangement, whether for a reasonable participation by each in the through rates, or on the basis of local rates for the service of each, or otherwise, were not within the power of the Union Pacific itself to determine, or of the courts, in the absence of legislative authority, to enforce. If, perchance, the Union Pacific had for a time a voluntary arrangement with the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul, the Michigan Central, and the New York Central for a through route and joint rates on traffic destined from New York common points to Ogden and thence to San Francisco, can it he true that that fact by itself would have constituted the Michigan Central a competitor of the Southern Pacific for *112that traffic within the intent and meaning of the anti-trust law? If not, it'does not seem to us that the Union Pacific Company, another-intermediate link, like it, in the same temporary through route, could have been such a competitor. But wé do not rest our conclusion on this feature of the case alone.
[3] In view of the fact that the Southern Pacific owned and operated the road from Ogden to San Francisco, with which alone (except for the circuitous and impracticable route via Portland and the sea to San Francisco) the Union Pacific could have connected, and over which alone it could have carried its traffic into San Francisco, we are unable to understand how the Union Pacific could have been an independent competitor with the Southern Pacific for business over that road into San Francisco. "While the Union Pacific was entirely dependent upon the Southern Pacific for its connection westward, the Southern Pacific was not at all dependent upon the Union Pacific for its connection eastward. The Denver & Rio Grande Company and its allied lines under one control had a through route extending from Ogden, through Denver, Kansas City, and St. Louis, to Chicago and other interior points, and thence by many available connections to New York and the seaboard. This was obviously a most attractive and powerful rival of the Union Pacific Company, and a constant menace to its success. The latter was in no position to coerce any action by the Southern Pacific. Its hands were tied.
But, it is argued, it could retaliate by using its influence to induce initial carriers or shippers to route transcontinental freight by way of Portland and the sea to San Francisco. This being such a long and unreliable route, little success could have been reasonably expected in such retaliation. If the Rio Grande should have been favored by the Southern Pacific as its Eastern connection, the Union Pacific, in the language of the witnesses, would have been practically bottled up at Ogden. With the advantage possessed by the Southern Pacific as an initial carrier to deflect all east-bound traffic to another line at Ogden, and with the right to exact on all east or west_ bound traffic local rates, instead of a fair and just proportion of an established through rate, the Southern Pacific would easily have put a quick and decisive ending to any hostile rivalry or competition, if such had been hazarded by the < Union Pacific. This absolute dependence by the latter upon the Southern Pacific for a distance of 800 miles of its only through route, to say nothing of its dependence upon the voluntary action of its Eastern connections already pointed out, in our opinion, rendered any equal or profitable competition between them impossible. No real rivalry in the nature of things could have subsisted as long as the success of one was dependent upon the consent or favor of the other. Instead of the situation being competitive, the two roads really acted together and co-operated between themselves and with their connections in securing as much of the transcontinental traffic, each for the other, according to their respective facilities, as they could get, and participated in the total revenue on a basis of comparative service rendered. Their relations were like those of a limited partnership, rather than those of hostile competitorship.
*113But it is said the Pacific Railroad acts, supra, obligated the Union Pacific and Central Pacific (the predecessor in right of the Southern Pacific so' far as the road from Ogden to San Brancisco is concerned) to the establishment of through routes and maintenance of joint rates, and take these roads out of the operation of the rule announced in the case of Southern Pacific Company v. Interstate Com. Com., supra. But we do not so interpret them. Those acts required the two roads, the one from Ogden east to Omaha and Kansas City, and the other from Ogden west to San Brancisco, or their predecessors, to be “operated and used for all purposes of communication, travel and transportation so far as the public and government are concerned, as one continuous line” (section 12, Act July 2, 1862, 12 Stat. 495), and also required them in such operation and use “to afford and secure to each equal advantages and facilities as to rates, time, transportation, without any discrimination of any kind in favor of the road or business of any or either of said companies, or adverse to the road or business of any or either of the others * * *” (section 15. Act July 2, 1864, 13 Stat. 362).
The act of 1862 not only provided for the continuous operation of the roads, but empowered them to consolidate (section 16); and so likewise did the act of 1864 (section 16). These acts were obviously intended to secure a permanent physical connection between the roads and to provide generally for equal accommodations to the public on the basis of independent carriers; but we discover in them no provisions or machinery by which the Southern Pacific, as successor to one of them, could have been compelled by the courts or otherwise to make agreements governing interchange of traffic or through rates, or fixing the division of such through rates between the two roads. Section 15 of the act of 1864 is not substantially different, so far as the matter under consideration is concerned, from section 3 of the interstate commerce act of 1887 (24 Stat. 380). They both forbid discrimination in rates between connecting lines. Section 3 has been held by the Interstate Commerce Commission and by the Court of Appeals of this circuit not to invest the commission or the courts with power to compel carriers to make contracts or agreements for through billing of freight or for joint rates. On the contrary, it was held that such matters are left to the voluntary determination of the interested carriers. L. R. & Mem. R. R. Co. v. E. Tenn., etc., Co., 3 Interst. Com. R. 1; Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. St. Louis & S. W. Ry. Co., 63 Fed. 775, 11 C. C. A. 417. See, also, to the same effect, Oregon Short Line. etc., v. Northern Pacific R. Co. (C. C.) 51 Fed. 465, 474, and Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Osborne, 52 Fed. 912, 914, 3 C. C. A. 347.
The voluminous evidence of officers, ag'ents, and shippers to the effect that active competition existed between the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific roads prior to 1901 must be considered in the light of the legal and physical relations of the roads to each other and of other related facts. Whether there "was competition or not, in view of all these things, is a mixed question of law and fact, and not susceptible of determination by the preponderance of proof as an issue of fact only. Without doubt there was active competition, but *114it was chiefly in co-operation with initial lines, which had the routings of freight, and for the benefit of such initial lines and their connections to Omaha or Kansas City, as well as for the benefit of the ■Union Pacific Company itself. Even so far as it was for the benefit of the latter company, it operated necessarily for the benefit of the Southern Pacific to an extent of about eight-twentieths of the haul after the Union Pacific took it at Omaha or Kansas City. In this condition of things, the opinions of any number of witnesses as to ■whether the two were competing lines within the meaning of the law is of little aid, and the general statement of those witnesses that the two roads had separate soliciting agents throws little, if any, light upon the ultimate issue.
The immediate and actuating intent and purpose of the Union Pacific Company in acquiring the Huntington stock, and thereby the control of the operations of the Southern Pacific line, were, according to the proof, to secure a permanent working and reliable connection at Ogden over an existing road for its through traffic; a connection not dependent upon the grace of a dominant copartner, but one within its own control. We recognize the proposition that, if the necessary and direct result of the purchase of the Huntington stock was to destroy or substantially suppress free and natural competition, before then existing between the two companies, or if that purchase put it within the power of the Union Pacific Company to destroy, or suppress such competition, the latter-named company would undoubtedly be held to have intended the natural and reasonable consequences of its act, and, notwithstanding the dominant purpose just mentioned, would have violated' the anti-trust law. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 211, 234, 20 Sup. Ct. 96, 44 L. Ed. 136; Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 328, 332, 357, 24 Sup. Ct. 436, 48 L. Ed. 679.
Our conclusion is that all the facts of this case, considered in their natural, reasonable, and practical aspect, and given their appropriate relative signification, do not make the Union Pacific a substantial competitor for transcontinental business with the Southern Pacific in or prior to the year 1901. We therefore pass to a consideration of some less important matters relied upon by the government to establish destruction of competition between those companies.
It is contended that it was destroyed or suppressed in transcon•tinental business between the Atlantic seaboard and Middle states, ■ on the one hand, and Portland and Willamette Valley common points, on the other hand. The route of the Southern Pacific for this business was by its own line via New Orleans and San Francisco to Portland, and that of the Union Pacific was by its own line from Omaha and Kansas City to Ogden, together with its connections and subconnections eastward from Omaha and Kansas City, and Its subsidiary lines, the Oregon Short Line and Oregon Railroad & Navigation Company running northwestwardly into Portland and the Valley. The geographical relation of these routes to each other, and the dependence of one of them, at least, upon voluntary arrangements with other lines, would seem to render natural and fair competition between them for the Portland trade impossible; but the *115slight volume of the traffic here involved affords a controlling and decisive consideration. For the year ending June 30, 1(X)Q, the tonnage of the Southern Pacific Company in' this trade was only 0.10 per cent, of its total tonnage. For the same year the tonnage of the Union Pacific Company in this trade was only 0.46 per cent, of its total tonnage.
Again, it is contended that the control of the Southern Pacific Company acquired by the Union Pacific Company suppressed free competition between them for business between the Atlantic seaboard and Colorado and Utah common points. The route of the Southern Pacific available for this traffic was from New York to New Orleans or Galveston by sea; thence over its0 own line to Ft. Worth, Tex. ; thence over its connection, the Colorado & Southern, to Denver; thence over another connection, the Denver & Rio Grande, into Utah.
The route of the Union Pacific Company available for it was its own line from Kansas City and Omaha to Denver and Ogden, with its numerous initial connections and subconnections, and also a line by sea from New York to Newport News and Savannah; thence by connections at those places with such railroads as would favor them through the interior of the country to the beginning of its own rails at Kansas City or Omaha.
Physically and practically speaking, in view of the circuity of the route of the Southern Pacific and of the necessary dependence of both companies upon volunteer connections, real rivalry between them for this traffic does not seem to have been possible; but here again the traffic itself was of little volume and comparatively unimportant. For the year ending January 30, 1900, the tonnage of the Southern Pacific in this business was only 0.19 per cent, of its total tonnage. For the same year the tonnage of the Union Pacific in this traffic was only 0.47 per cent, of its total tonnage.
A like contention is made concerning the traffic between San Francisco, on the one hand, and Portland and points in the Willamette Valley, on the other hand; but this traffic was also small. For the year ending June 30, 1901, the tonnage of the Southern Pacific in this traffic was only 0.36 per cent, of its total tonnage, and the tonnage of the Union Pacific Company in it for the same period was only 1.27 per cent, of its total tonnage.
A similar contention is made concerning the traffic from Portland and Willamette Valley common points, on the one hand, and Ogden and its common points, on the other. The route of the Southern Pacific Company for this business was by the so-called Shasta route from Portland to Sacramento, and thence via the old Central Pacific route to Ogden. This was a long and circuitous route, compared to that of the Union Pacific Company from Portland via Oregon Railroad & Navigation Company and Oregon Short Fine to Ogden. Not only is this so, but the business was trifling. P'or the year ending June 30. 1901, the tonnage of tile Southern Pacific in it was only 0.01 per cent, of its total tonnage, while that of the Union Pacific was only 0.35 per cent, of its total tonnage.
A like contention is made concerning traffic from San Francisco, on the one hand, and points in Montana, Idaho, Eastern Oregon, and *116Washington, on the other hand, Without commenting upon the uncompetitive character of those routes for this business, it suffices to call attention to the insignificance of the traffic itself. For the year ending June 30, 1900, the tonnage of the Southern Pacific Company in it was only 0.02 per cent, of its total tonnage, while that of the Union Pacific Company for the same time was only 0.23 per cent, of its total tonnage.
Claim is also made that the control which the Union Pacific Company acquired by the purchase of the Huntington stock suppressed free competition between them for the Oriental traffic. Many considerations arising out of the relations of the two roads to the transpacific steamship lines which carried the traffic from the coast have conduced to the conclusion reached; but bearing in mind that we are not considering this case in view of the present Oriental traffic, but in view of what it was 10 years ago, when the transaction complained of occurred, we find adequate reason for it in the small amount of this business also. For the year ending January 30, 1901, the tonnage of the Southern Pacific in handling it was only 0.20 per cent, of its total tonnage, while that of the Union Pacific both through San Francisco and Portland gateways was only 0.41 per cent, of its total tonnage.
The aggregate of all the business done by the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific Companies over all these routes for the years specified, which we believe fairly represent the general conditions prevailing at or before the Huntington stock was purchased, was for the Southern Pacific Company 0.88 per cent, of the entire tonnage of that system, and for the Union Pacific Company 3.10 per cent, of its aggregate tonnage. Tables in evidence also disclose that the total revenue derived from the traffic over these minor routes by the Southern Pacific .Company for the year preceding the year of the Huntington purchase amounted to only 1.25 per cent, of the total revenue of that system.
Certainly the desire to appropriate the trifling business done by the Southern Pacific Company on these minor lines, or' to suppress a competition in traffic which was in the aggregate of such small proportions, could not have been the inspiration of the vast outlay involved in the purchase of the Huntington stock. Neither was the suppression of competition in this infinitesimally small proportion of the business of both companies a substantial or natural consequence of that important transaction. It did not amount to a direct and substantial restraint of either interstate or international commerce. It was at best only contingently, incidentally, and infinitesimally affected by it. This is not sufficient to bring it within the condemnation of the anti-trust law. United States v. Joint Traffic Association, 171 U. S. 505, 19 Sup. Ct. 25, 43 L. Ed. 259; Anderson v. United States, 171 U. S. 604, 19 Sup. Ct. 50, 43 L. Ed. 300; Field v. Barber Asphalt Co., 194 U. S. 618, 24 Sup. Ct. 784, 48 L. Ed. 1142; Northern Securities Co. v. United States, supra; Cincinnati Packet Co. v. Bay, 200 U. S. 179, 26 Sup. Ct. 208, 50 L. Ed. 428; Phillips v. Iola Portland Cement Co., 61 C. C. A. 19, 12. Fed. 593; Arkansas Brokerage Co. v. Dunn & Powell, 97 C. C. A. 454, 173 Fed. 899; United *117States v. Standard Oil Company (C. C.) 173 Fed. 177, and cases cited.
[41 This concludes consideration of the effect of the transaction chiefly relied upon by the government in this case. But it is contended that the purchase by the Union Pacific of a controlling interest in the stock of the Northern Pacific Company was also violative of the anti-trust law. Without dwelling on the reason for the purchase of this stock, disclosed in the preceding statement of facts, it is sufficient to say that, if any controlling interest was thereby acquired, it was lost some time before this suit was instituted, and that none of that stock is now held by or for the Union Pacific Company. As there is no showing of any like ambitious project in this respect for the future, we fail to discover any opportunity or reason for the injunctive "relief on this account.
[5 ] The transaction of 1904, by which a syndicate of men interested in the Union Pacific Company purchased for their individual account $30,000,000 in face value of the stock of the Santa Fé Com-pan}", and the investment in 1906 of $10,000,000 by the Union Pacific in acquiring 5 per cent, of that stock are not claimed to have conferred any actual power of control upon the Union Pacific over operations of the Santa Fé Company. The proof does not disclose that any such control was acquired or attempted to be exercised. Even if the motive of the purchasers was to gain some inside information concerning the operations of the great competitor of the Union Pacific Company, they chose an entirely lawful way for doing it, and their acts afford no reason for judicial condemnation.
f®] Much of the argument relating to the construction of the San Pedro route is addressed to the proposition that, because the San Pedro line was not completed at the time the Huntington stock was purchased, and because there was no competition then existing between the roads in question, there could have been no contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of it. The contention of the government in this particular, that a contract to strangle a threatened competition by preventing the construction of an immediately projected line of railway, which, if constructed, would naturally and substantially compete with an existing line for interstate traffic, would be in violation of the anti-trust law, may well be conceded. United States v. Patterson (C. C.) 59 Fed. 280; Interstate Com. Com. v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 123 Fed. 969; Thomsen v. Union Castle Mail S. S. Co., 92 C. C. A. 315, 166 Fed. 251; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 3 Sadler (Pa. Sup. Ct. Cases) 83, 91, 7 Atl. 374.
[7] But this concession does not settle the question before us. The San Pedro line, as originally projected and as ultimately constructed, does not appear to have been naturally competitive with the Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, or any of the subsidiary lines. It is practically a continuation of the Union Pacific or Oregon Short I fine southwardly, and, generally speaking, its course is at right angles, rather than parallel with, either the Union Pacific or Southern Pacific line. If it, as an existing route, had been acquired by the Union Pacific, it would have served rather as a short cut from Los Angeles to *118Salt Lake City, to avoid the circuitous route between those points via San Francisco, than as a natural competitor for any of the business of that route. While it was calculated to deprive the Southern Pacific of a long haul on traffic destined between Los Angeles and Salt Lake City and beyond, it would be unfortunate indeed if that fact should have prevented its construction, especially when it was practically at right angles with the Southern line, and much shorter and much better adapted to serve the public. In these circumstances it, as projected and built, was not, in our opinion, naturally competitive with the Southern Pacific line, as alleged in the bill.
It is however, contended that in the adjustment of differences between the Union Pacific and its allied or subsidiary companies with the Clark interests, resulting in the construction of one line between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles, instead of two, as projected, there was a suppression of competition which would have existed between the two, if they had built separately. We, however, are unable to discover anything in the transaction except a laudable purpose to adjust differences and construct a line _ of railroad between the two points which would serve their joint interests as well as those of the public. The evidence discloses that it was not feasible to construct two lines of road over the only practicable route throu'gh the canyon in the mountains, known as “Meadow Valley Wash.” This, with other reasons of a practical nature, fully justified the abandonment of the project of constructing two lines and the consolidation of them into one.
Some minor agreements fixing the relations between the new San Pedro line and the other lines composing the system of the Union Pacific, as well as the. provisions for fixing through and local rates, were made; but these are so incidental to the main transaction, already found not to have violated the interstate commerce act, as to warrant no further consideration. If it be true, as already pointed out, that the San Pedro line was not naturally competitive with the Union Pacific or. Southern Pacific lines, none of these incidental things would disturb legitimate competition within the purview of the antitrust law.
The evidence discloses certain transactions between the Southern Pacific Company, on the one hand, and the Phoenix & Eastern and the California & Northwestern Railroad Companies, on the other hand, which are claimed to have been in restraint of competition' between them; but as they affect local transportation only, and are not complained of in the bill as substantive wrongs, and as neither of the two last-mentioned companies are made parties to this action, it is not perceived how any independent relief with respect to them' can be granted. We therefore refrain from considering them, except in so far as they afford relevant evidence on issues joined in the case.
[8] Having now found that the several contracts or transactions specifically camplained of in this case did not offend against the antitrust law, it seems hardly necessary to discuss the claim, little debated by counsel, that they evidenced a combination or conspiracy to do so. In determining whether a combination or conspiracy in violation of the-first section of the anti-trust act, namely, to restrict competition and thereby restrain commerce, was entered into, the facts already *119found may properly be supplemented by reference to actual consequences and results. These often reflect the original meaning and purpose of preceding transactions. The proof shows that after 1901, as well as before, the rates for transcontinental traffic were the same over both the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific lines, and that there has since then been with respect to either of these lines no impairment of service, no deterioration of the physical properties, no discontinuance of efforts to satisfy the public, and no complaints of shippers of any inferior or inadequate service.
The large number of initial carriers striving for that traffic have continued their active solicitation for business over the line which assured them the longest haul or otherwise benefited them most, and although some agents of the two roads, which before 1901 were separate, are now joint, they have continued to exercise their influence to secure business for either road according to its availability, and always in opposition to other active competitors, like the Santa fie and Denver & Rio Grande roads. A substantial majority of the stock of the Southern Pacific Company has been held by parties other than the Union Pacific Company; but we fail to find any complaint by such holders of any discrimination against their road or of any failure to properly promote its welfare. None of the minor points charged to have been deprived of competitive opportunities by the Huntington purchase are shown to have suffered as a result of that purchase. On the contrary, hundreds of millions of dollars have since 1901 been expended on these roads. Their physical condition has been vastly improved, and their efficiency for public service as well as for private profit has been greatly enhanced. The whole proof, taken together, we think, fails to disclose any conspiracy to restrain interstate or foreign commerce, in violation of the first section of the act.
The same considerations lead to the conclusion that no combination or conspiracy to monopolize or attempt to monopolize trade or commerce among the states or with foreign nations was entered into. Moreover, the fact that the Union Pacific Company did not secure or undertake to secure the control of the Santa Fé road, a thoroughly sufficient, well-equipped, and powerful rival for transcontinental business, or the Denver & Rio Grande road, a potential, and later an actual, powerful rival for the same business, affords additional and conclusive evidence of no such combination or conspiracy. The purchase by the Union Pacific Company, soon after acquiring the Huntington stock, of a majority of the capital stock of the Northern Pacific Company, tends to the opposite conclusion; hut, in view of the main reason for its acquisition and its disposition by the Unión Pacific Company, we are indisposed to give to that purchase alone any considerable significance.
The conclusions of fact already stated dispose of this case without the necessity of determining the question, much debated in brief and argument, whether securing control of the Southern Pacific Company by purchasing stock of individual owners could in any view of the case have contravened the anti-trust law. On the facts of this case, with all their reasonable and fair inferences, we conclude that the government has failed to substantiate the averments of its bill.
*120Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER, while a Circuit Judge, participated in the hearing, deliberation, and conclusion in this case, and he now concurs in this opinion.
The bill must be dismissed, and a decree will be entered to that effect.
SANBORN, Circuit Judge, concurs.