OCR Text |
Show ftiday, Peoanber itftftKA IUU01tBf 1, 1922. Bg rrr y zs3: fl Cental Pacific iron Soiteri If Desirable in 1913, Why Disastrous in 1922? ' Sonffiern Pacific Officials Favored Plan in 1911, Declaring It Feasible and Beneficial to Publics Interests, Territory Served and Roads Themselves. .f I . I t I I t ' J ' I Advocates of Southern Pacific retention of Central Pacific control profess extreme anxiety and utter loud warnings as to the disastrous results that would follow sepa- ration of those properties in compliance with the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court, i May 29, 1922. The numerous perils of disruption are pathetically pointed out, in support of the appeal to the people of Utah and of the intermountain country to array themselves on the side of the .Southern Pacific in opposition to the Supreme Court's order. This brings into view a change of heart on the part of the Southern Pacific so complete and sudden as to claim more than passing notice. A bit of not remote history will prove Uluminative on the 1 t .V X' 1918 the Southern Padfle made a voluntary application to the Railroad Commission of California to sell the Central Pacific to the Union Pacific. The papers were drawn up and agreed to, but the project fell through because the California Commission disapproved of the exclusion of other roads from the use of the line ' from Sacramento to Oakland, the Benicia Cut-of- f. The to either not surrender of this facility was satisfactory an was the Union Pacific or the Southern Pacific and Important reason why the deal fell through. Oat of Their Own Mouth Testimony of President William Sproule and Chief Counsel WBliam F. Herrin of the Southern Pacific, and of President Wheeler of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, before the California Commission at the Him thin sale was under discussion was to the effect that the proposed transfer could be made without detri--aunt to the public interest pad with vast benefit to the Southern Padfle and the territory served by it President Sproule, who is surely qualified to speak authoritatively on this subject, was especially emphatic in asserting that the change in ownership of the Central Padfle would not affect adversely either passenger or freight traffic, would not give the Union Pacific a dominant position, would mean active competition with afsvorableeffecton rates and service and would be highly beneficial to the Southern Pacific In relieving It of the obligation of furnishing tens of millions of doflarefor betterments and improvements of the Central Pacific, besides enormously heavy fixed charges, bonded indebtedness, ete. Chief Counsel Herrin was no less emphatic in declaring as bis opinion that the proposed sale would be to the benefit, the very large benefit, of the and the benefit of the terriSouthern Padfle P-- pwy tory we serve." Yet today, when the Supreme Court by its decision of last May orders the very thing to be done which the Southern Pacific officials were desirous of doing in 1918, those same officials, and Southern Pacific propagandists and advocates generally, arise in furious rethat the proposed separation of the sistance and two reads would be little less than a national calamity, wad would be attended by the most disastrous consequences to the roads themselves and the territory they serve. No new perils or menaces have arisen in this situation since 1918. If perils did not exist then and the Southern Padfle stoutly mslatatncd that thsy did at they do not exist new. I i I I I dealt with, either by way of apportionment er by j provisions for joint or common use, in such man- neras will secure to both companies such full con- - i venient and ready access to the Bey and to term- - ; ' Inal facilities thereon that each company wiD be able freely to compete with the other, to serve the ; ! public efficiently, end to accomplish the purpose of the legislation under which it was constructed. And a like course should be pursued in dealing ' with the lines extending from San Frandsco Bay to Sacramento and to Portland, Oregon." ; Thus tumbles, like a bouse of cards, the Southern PaP. cific contention that the unmerger of the S. P.-would mean the mortal injury, the practical eviaewa-tioof the former property. , C. n, As a matter of fact, joint trackage arrangementi are by no means unusual in railroad operation. Many instances might be dted where carriers use the rafla of other roads and where they permit other roads to uaa theirs. But such cases are too familiar to shippers to require enumeration here. They illustrate the recognition of one of the simplest agendes for effecting economies in operation. Other Fears Equally Groundless The allegation or fear that an increase of passenger and freight rates would be made necessary by dismen-bermealso received attention wheiy the proposed sale was under ocnsMeration in 1913. It was refuted by President Sproule then, and it has no basis or warrant now. Through passenger and freight service would not he disrupted or affected in any injurious way by the separation which the Supreme Court has now ordered, nor would rates be increased by carrying its dedalon into effect nt Opponents of dismemberment have sought to throw a doleful light on their picture by delineating the inconvenience and discomfort to passengers through being compelled to change cars (perhaps in the middle of the night) : checking baggage two or three times between California. Ogden and Oregon; delays at termto-al- s while waiting to be switched to other lines; of shops and altering of freight and pass so as to necessitate change of residence by runs ger employees; and the innumerable other adverse conng ditions and readjustments which an active or playful Imagination can conjure up. To all such apprehension file testimony of President Sproule of the Southern Fh-dfin 1918 administers an effectual quietua. He at declared that the change of ownership of ths time that Central Pacific would not affect the passenger in any way; that the Southern Pacific would not be hnmght "by any means in the lions maw of the Union Padfle that the separation then proposed would improve both the service of the Union Padlic and Central Padfle by creating competition which always improves service that it would result In an increase in rail fadttties hi the State of California;thatthe business of all the affected would be benefited, file great new expenditures necessary for the Central Padfle shifted to new shoulders, the Southern Pacifics treasury thereby enriched all of which reasons warranted him in affirming that the Southern Padfle would gain by the separation. le Court Decision Guarantees Ample Protection The fear is expressed today by Southern Padfle tpplrfTwm that conqdiance with the Supreme Court's dismemberment decision would wreck and ruin various parts of that system in California by leaving than without connections in the air so to speak. This fear Is pfetorially presented in one 'of the mape circulated in connection with Southern Pacific recent publicity. But it had just as rmA foundation in 1918 as it has in 1922. In feet it had more foundation then than now; for whereas the negotiations for the sale of the Central Pacific to the Union Padfle at that time came to naught because of the California Commission's insistence on certain joint use requirements which both the Southern Pacific and the Union Padfle were disinclined to approve, the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision of May 29, 1922, affords protection of the most ample and explidt kind to the Southern Pacific after it shall have divested itself of the Central Padfle. On this point, the language of the decision leaves nothing to be desired by way of defining the scope and dearness at the courts intention. Says the court: leadThe several terminal lines and cut-off-s ing to San Frandsco Bay which have been constructed or acquired dnring the unified control of file two systems for the purpose of affording direct or convenient access to the Bay and to the prin--' dpal t1"!" facilities about the Bay, ihould be i mh Thi brings the discussion back to tho original proposition: If separation was not only feasible but desirable in 1913- - arisen it was voluntarily proposed and negotiated by the taro roads most vitally concerned, it cannot consistently be opposed as imprao ticable and disastrous in ,1922 by one of i i i i those same roads, especially arhen the Supreme Court of the United States has de cided and ordered that it be done. r We Shall Furnish Additional Information From Tims to Tims fmm I 4 i 4 4 SYSTnEi I i 1 SALT LAKE CITY 7l wmm i |