OCR Text |
Show L J..n ,'.JT H.i .T'.y,.'.....,:., - IM..n .-v. v -V: . ' .,J'. ...i-W .jv-.Ij J-i...J,uli.-, t .-.'.,.' . - -rp. - ytt'nMlW - imifi hjj trn it Ilia it I d I IB HiriTl ' " " I "11 Til J -- -f,,M n ,1r - -- , , n, , - , r auLji1l Soporcifioii of Oontfi Pacific to Soutliorsi Focific If Desirable in 1913, Why Disastrous in 1922 Southern Pacific Officials Favored Plan in 1 9 1 3 Declaring it Feasible and Beneficial to Public's Interests, Territory Served and Roads Themselves :: :: JN 1913 the Southern Paciflc made a voluntary application to . inStXSS JL the Railroad Commission of California to sell the Central or by way of apportionment or by provisions for Joint or common use, in such manner as will secure to both Pacific to the Union Pacific. The papers were drawn up and companies such full, convenient and ready access to the Bay and to determinal facilities thereon that each agreed to, hut the project fell through because the California company will be able freely to compete with the other, . . ,. , , . , , t0 serve the public efficiently, and to accomplish the r Commission disapproved of the exclusion of other roads from purpose of the legislation under which it was construe the use of the line from Sacramento to Oakland, the Benicia edtw a"ke co"rs! ,shou?ld be Pursued in dealing w'th the lines extending from San Francisco Bay to Advocates Of COUthem Pacific re- Cut-off .The surrender of this facility was not satisfactory Sacramento and to Portland, Oregon." either to the Union Paciflc or the Southern Pacific and was an Thug Hke & house of teiltion Of Central Pacific Control pro- important reason why the deal fell through. contention that the unmerger of the S. P. - O. P. would mean f rr,1 . g-T. the moral injury, the practical evisceration, of the former pro- feSS extreme anxiety . and utter loud (Jilt OI 1 heir O Wn MOUth perty. Testimony of President William Sproule and Chief Counsel As a matter of fact, joint trackage arrangements are by no Warnings as to the disastrous results William F. Herrin of the Southern Pacific, and of President means unusual in railroad operation. Many instances might be Wheeler of the Ran Francisco Chamber Commerce, before the cited where carriers use the rails of other roads and where they that WOUld follOW Separation 0 fthOSe California Commission at the time this sale was under discus- permit other roads to use theirs. But such cases are too famil- sion was to the effect that the proposed transfer could be made iar to shippers to require enumeration here. They illustrate the properties in Compliance With the deci- without detriment to the public Interest and with vast benefit recognition of one of the simplist agencies for effecting econo- to (he Southern Pacific and the territory Served by it. Presi- mies in operation. ;i tt n n r, , r ' dent Spropulo, who is surely qualified to speak authoritatively sion of the U. S. Supreme Court, May ,. . . . Cither Ppqrc TTmidllv c 'J on thig subjecti was especially emphatic in asserting that the J L11CI JT CClI 3 -dLlllliy change in ownership of the Central Pacific would not affect ad- CjIOUridleSS 29, 1922. The numerous perils of dis- hor pa .r or tr!cfflc would not giYC the The allegation or fear that an increase of passenger and Union Pacific a dominant position, would mean active compe- , , . , , . , . ii . , i , . ! . freight rates would be made necessary by dlsmenberment also ruptlOn are patnetlCaily pomtea OUt, m tition with a favorable effect on rates and service and would be . ' received attention when the proposed sale was under consider- . . .i , . , . highly cial t0 the Southern Pacific ia relieving R ot the ation in 1913. It was refuted by President Sproule then, and Support Ot the appeal tO the people Of obligation of furnishing tens of millions of dollars for better- f - 6 it has no basis or wannant now. Through passenger and frei- Utah and hOW the intermOUntain COUn- mentS Imroveraents -f the CenUal PacifiC' be3ideS ght service would not be disrupted or affected in any Injurious niously heavy fixed charges, bonded indebtedness. Chief Coun- way by the separaUon whlch the Suprcm6 Court has now order. try tO array themselves On the Side Of ell Herrin was no less emphatic in declaring as his own opln- ,ncreMed by carring Ua declslon lnt0 ' - ' ion that the proposed sale would be "to the benefit," of the eflect j the Southern Pacific in Opposition tO southern Pacific company and the benefit of the territory we Opponents of dismemberment have sought to throw a dote- the Supreme Court's Order. This brings n ' ful light o ntheir picture by delineating the inconvenience and Yet today, when the Supreme Court by its decision of last dl3Comfort to passengers through being compelled to change into View a Chanfe Of heart On thp riart May rders the vel'y thing to be done which the Southern Pac- cars (perhaps in the middle of the night:) checking baggage 6 c , , fJ . , ,. m two or three times between California, Ogden and-Oregon; de- iflc nfficiaK were desirous of doing in 19111, those same officials, lays at terminals while waiting to be switchea u other lines; y 01 the Southern Pacific SO Complete and and Southern Pacific propagandists and advocates generally, dismantling of shops and altering of freight and passenger arise in furious resistance and claim that the proposed separ- runs so as to necessitate change of residence by employees; Sudden as tO Claim more than passing . t . ... ...... ,OQe ..,, ral. and the inumerable other adverse conditions and readjust- 6 ation of the two roads would be little less than a national cal- whIch &a &Mye Qr pIayfu, lmaginatlon can conjur up. nnfiVp A hi't nf tint romnta fnmr nnH amity, and would be attended by the most disastrous conse- To all such apprehensions, the testimony of President Sproule y . , , tho r.itnrv thev serve of the Southern Paciflc in 1913 administers an effectual qule- auences to the roads themselves and' the territory they serve. , . . . , quB L s tus. He at that time declared' that the change of ownership of prove illuminative On the Subject. ) No new perils or menaces have arizen in this situation since the Central Pacific would not affect the passenger in any way; I 1913 If perils did not exist theiir and the Southern Padflfl that the Southern Paciflc would not be brought "by meana in j - . the lion's maw of the Union Pacific;" that the separation then stoutly maintained that they did not-they do not est now. . . and the Central Paciflc by creating competition which "always , COlirt Decision. CjUcirlIlteeS improves service;" that it would result in an increase in rail -j y-j . , facilities in the State of California; that the business of all tha ; xVlTiple JL rOteCllOIl roads affected would be benefited, the great new expenditures t, .c i ' necessary for the Central Pacific shifted to new shoulders, the The fear is expressed today by Southern Pacific spokesmen Soulherll pacific's treasury thereby enriched all of which rea- that compliance with the Supreme Court's dismemberment de- sons warranted him in affirming that the Southern Paciflo mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmi ciKion would wreck and ruin various parts of that system in would gain by the separation. California by leaving them without connections "in the air tin i ii. tt n i i so to soeak This fear is pictorially presented in one of the . , , . . What the Union Pacific has done maps circulated in connection with southern pacific recent This brings the discussion back to the origin- ' publicity. But it had just as much foundation in 1913 as it ., .... , . has in 1922. In fact it had more foundation then than now; al proposition : ..If Separation WaS not Only fea- lt Will Continue tO dO aSSlSt the COm- for whereas the negotiations for the sale of Central Pacific to commisionexir.cron tTni&! sible but desirable in 1913 when it was voluntar-munities voluntar-munities along its lines to grow and rnetSdndhinrdtltapp?o0vethethe lupremS" oiThe unnefld ily proposed and negotiated by the two roads States in its decision of May 29, 1922, affords protection of . ,1rn,. Tr : n mattr Af vo,,nvf3 fi,f the most ample and explicit kind to the southern Pacific after most vitally concerned, it cannot consistently be prOSpei . II IS a matter 0I reCOl a tnat it ghall have divested itself of the Central Pacific. On this point, the language of the decision leaves nothing to be desired opposed aS impracticable and disastrous in 1922 ,. , l.i by way of defining the scope and clearness of the courts in- no line has ever come under the con- tentton. says the court: by one of those same roads, especially when the trol of the Union Pacific which has to ZlllZsJ b IK? Supreme Court of the United States has decided or acquired during the unified control -of the two , nrfWfri thflt it hp HnnP aystems for the purpose of affording direct or con- - dfiO Oraeieu Iffdl 11 ue UOne. .. not been improved in facilities and . , U1. We shall furnish additional information from time to time service to the public. ' Union Pacific System SALT LAKE CITY , p,.., ,-.., ,,wrWuM ,.,., .,.,,.u..!ll.u.u....l "- ; ,. . . . .1 L-fol.- J;;-- -,.Mf. ..... -i, .M-fh.l.'l.' --ri.-Ti.in. frinrw.nrtr.i.ii- |