OCR Text |
Show Separation of Ceiitral Pacific km Southern Pacific If Desirable in 1913, W hy Disastrous in 1922? t Southern Pacific Officials Favored Plan in 1913, ; Declaring II Feasible and Beneficial to Public's Interests, Territory Served and Roads Themselves. ; f N 1913 the Southern Pacific made a voluntary appli- dealt with, either by way of apportionment ;or f ) j : ! '1 cation to the Railroad Commission of California to provisions for joint or common use, in sucn m i , ! sell the Central Pacific to the Union Pacific. The papers ner as will secure to both companies sucull c 1 were drawn up and agreed to, but the project fel Went and ready access to the Bay and to .term- I through because the California Commission disapproved inal facilities thereon that each company will , j : of the exclusion of other roads from the use of the line atle freely to compete with the other to erv tn , . from Sacramento.to OaHand, the Benicia Cut-off The public efficiently, and to accompli h th , j surrender of th facility was rot satisfactory either to the legislation under which it was eJ ; j I Advocates of Southern Pa- the Union Pacific or the Souther, Pacific and was an Ad a coould ll'Z frZiZ important reason why the dral fill through. with the lines exto . i.nj I-om j Cific retention Of Central Pa- to Sacramento and to Portland, Oregon. j ! cific control profess extreme 0ut f lhelr Wn . . . Th-s tumble P hose of cards, the Southern PJ- ciric coimui y Tetimonv of President William Sproule and Chief , c..f.v ro ,, ,imerer of the S. P.-C. V. anxiety and utter loud warn- , Counsel William F. Herri of the Southern Pacific, and V,T,H mVar,P -no--i imury, the practical ev.scer - . of Presidpnt Whcelor of the San Francio Chamber r,f tion, of the forra r property. ings as to the disastrous re- Commerce, before the California Common at the . trackasre arrangement : i. fi af wo1r1 follow seDa- time this Rale was under discussion was to the effect As m t- ,.., . ..,-,r0-,d operation. Many suits that would follow ,epa . taj propose! transfer could be mndc vitb,nt detn- Z w the rails of ration of those properties in roent to the P"Hk interest and with vast boni to the compliance with the decision . - tfr P n ' SvPortP " ,w,ct. ws eeciflly emphntfc in- as- j. : nt .v, ,bwle,t for effecting econ- of the U. S. Supreme Court, 'th!,t. ihe ch-mre in .ovmershir- of .the Central , H o-r;.-n. I I : ' . p ., A -ot affpnt Mverselv either p-wenpev or May 29, 1922. The numer- ' . St tnrffc.' would no- ivethe Union Pacifk F really Groundless t I I V " j Fn.iH moil ffl'"1'! ."'H,il,',""'n W'tl wu-K' . - .. ous perils of disruption are jSThleeffe rato -d wd would v-eh;h- p.,,n "-ncrease of pe" - pathetically pointed out, in . ltX CZ'S : support of the appeal to the KSrTTi -vv' fi-H rrw. a in- ;..,.,.. ..uorW people of - Utah and of the in- SS""' -Won tw'th nsed e "-.-u - - - wv h? ih J ' ph,Tb "t'n "-fc-f H,e -v.l-r-. of tne c,r.- -v. o ort h- now ordered, termountain country to array southern rciftc Company f he benefit of the terri- ro v- vaes be increased by carrying its decisioa j i l th de of the I tory we serve" into effect. SoXrPicinoppos.tion ' oilsf StK ' !. to the S W. oraer. ' ' 5 fetlW? I This brings nto view a change , " V. ggffi 0 . , . I two roads would be liUle, than a nat.onal cal..mu.y, t ,w).frT,p to other lines; dif- of heart on the part of the . -; " , 1 W - ' . Southern Pacific so compl dM and sudden as to claim more JfiiS lSri tkal ih" r did .:"W5: I . . A Kit I - not they do not exist n- -. ' w,n. f Trnont. Sproule of the Southern Pft- than passing notice. t oit rific n 11S aHro-'ers an effectual quietus. He at . u:ef.nrv will ; Court Decision Guarantees dpHnved that the change of ownership of the of not remote history win o e Protection . fSi PnHfic would not affect the ,f "f" ln I . . .1 0U I rt ,. tllt th" ?niitheri Pnc'fic would not be brought prove illuminative on the SUD- is expressed today by Southern Pacific , -n thP liop-, mflW of the Union Pacific; I ennkesmen that compliance with the Supreme Court s ri-. thr proved would improve i bott ject. demberment decision wo,ld -reck and rum P iho V, P.dflc and Central Pacific :bf J Ss of that system in Calif orn.a by leaving hem i h- Ptit-n which "always improves outconnections-''in the air" so to speak. Ih.s fear s ; jn an ir1crpnRP in rail fac.htles in SSly presented in one of the maps circulated in rniifornia : that the business of all the roadt I ' Connect ion with Southern Pacific recent pubhety. But.t the t p hpnpfifed. the ?ret new expend.f-ref ' . W fust as much foundation in 1913 as ,t has in 1922 BUrv for the Antral Pacific shifted to new should ; t fact it had more foundation then ban now for CethprSonthprn Pacific's treasury thereby ennched- whereas th ; negotiation for the sale of the Central Pa- Vv-hVh r-rons warranted him in affirming thai So the Southern Pacific would gain W the separation. ' SSoite hich botjitbuthern di8CUMion back tO th. - lZt original proposition: If 9 decision of Ma- 29. 1 oor P,,;f. oftPr it cnly feasibb but desirable m 1913- when - What the Union Pacific has ? . tfhed it was voluntarily proposed and negotiated done it will continue to do-as- m poillt JHpT. he opd ckarnes8 of ty the two roads most vitally concerned, it ' Sist the communities along Us I 'court's mtehtion. Says the court: cannot consistently be opposed as imprao- lines to grow and prosper. It .e seVBral terminal line;: and ,ut-orf IH- tIcable and disastrous in 1922 by one of I matter of record that no FZ S those samo roads, especially when the Si ; I ,ine has ever come under the -for the purpose of affordin, dTect e Court of the United States ha. d- ' ontrol of the Union Pa en.n t acce. to to the cidgd and ordered that it be done. I which has not been improved in I dpal terminal fadht.es 1 I facilities and service to the pub- I lW Information From Time to Time s KS iN PACIFIC SYSTEM : I " SALT LAKE CITY - |