Show separation ol of ce pacific irom son athern pacific Tf if desirable m in 1913 why disastrous in 1922 southern Sont laera pacific officials favored mau in 1913 declaring it ft feasible Fea sISe ar aahl beneficial to t pym bublies Pu blies interests territory ed SEI rn boals themselves 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 8 in compliance with the dc decision casion of the U S supreme court may 29 1922 the numerous 0 perils of disruption are pathetically pointed out in fort lort of the appeal to the people of utah and of the in country to array thenna elves on the side of the loutfi southern ern pacific in opposition supreme court couri s order this brings into view a change df cf heart on the part of the southern pacific so eo comp frand and sudden as to claim more than passing notice A bit of not remote history will prove illuminative on the subject i what the union pacific has done it will continue to doas do as gist the communities along its U to grow and prosper it matter ot record that no line has ever come under the control of the union which has not been improved in and service to the pub I 1 be T N 1913 the southern jacif Z ft mac a voluntary alph i cation to the railroad carimal i 3 oi oa of cal foint to sell the central pacific to the vi ui U i on P cefic ane papers were drawn up and agreed i i but the project fell through bemuse the califra ma C amis on oi o i d app approved royed of the exclusion of other roads fron from tiie te use of the line from sacramento to oakland ane deri dena iti C fc off the surrender of this facility was wa af 3 sit sat y either to the union pacific or the so ethein daei n pee pac ile he and wa an important reason why vie fie d all al fil fell through out of r 0 n louth olih testimony of president t 7 iliana and chief counsel william F r herrin of southam n pacific fic and of pres dent wheeler of tn S i frucco chamber of commerce before the callor califor i a commission at the time this sale ws was d sell oi 01 wis was to the effect that the pro proposed transfer coull ckuj be mide made without detriment to the pailhe lut rest and with v vt vat t benefit to the southern and the terrin rv v served by it president sproule who he is surely quei ed cd t speak tive dively y 0 on this subject ct was epi e p i lav emphatic in asserting sert that the cli anze in of the central pacific m would cold not affect adver elv pitt r or freight traffic would mould not rne the union pacific a dominant portion wo we ild m man mai an aeve tive with rat rats 9 and aid s ilov rv cn and would mould be high fir to the Sou Sou thein co c n rel eing it t of the obligation of oc furnishing tons of ro r 11 1 ons oni of for betterments and improvement of nf the central pacific besides enormously heavy fied charres chir chi pes bonded in ete etc chief counsel H harln 1 in was no lea lesi emphatic in declaring as his on nion mon thit that the pro proposed Dosed sale would be to the benefit the very large be alft befit elft el fit ft of the southern pacific company and the benefit of the territory we serve yet today when u hen the supreme me court by its decision of last may orders the very aling to be done which the southern pacific officials v ere desirous of doing in 1918 those same officials and southern pacific propagandists ts and generally arise in furious resistance si and claim that the separation of the two roads m would be little less than a national calamity and would mould be attended by bv t ti most da c consequences rise to the roads c ard th the c territory they serve no new perils or menaces have ar sen in this situation since 1913 if per Is dd rot pot exist eist then and the southern pacific stoutly maintained that they did not they do not exist now court decision guarantees ample protection the fear is depressed today by So southern athern pacific spokesmen that compliance with mith the supreme courts dismemberment decision woi met id wreck and ruin various parts of that sa s stem in california calif oma by leaving them without connections in the ar a r 0 o to speak this fear is pictorially pic tonally presented in one of the maps circulated in connection with southern pacific recent publicity but it had just uit as much foundation in 1913 as it has in 1922 in fact it had more fo foundation then than now for whereas the negotiations for the sae fe of th aha C attal rT t tal al pacific to the union pacific at that time tima lan can i naught because of the california commiss ins insistence on certain joint use requirements which both the southern pacific and the union pacific were dis inclined to approve the supreme court of the united states in its ita decision becis on of may 29 1922 affords protection of the most amale agule and explicit kind to the Sou southern pacific after it shall have divested itself of the central pacific on this point the language of the decision leaves nothing to be desired deemed by way of defining the scope and clearness of the courts intention says the coart the several terminal lines and cutoffs cut offs leading to san francisco bay which have been constructed ted or acquired during the unified control of the two systems for the purpose of affording direct birget or convenient access to the bay and to the principal tera terminal unal facilities about the bay should be dealt with either by way of import or by provisions for joint or common use in such man ner as aa will secure to both companies such full con benent berrent and ready access to the bay and to term inal faculties facil ties cherco i that each company will mill be able freely to compete with the other to serve the public efficiently and to accomplish the purpose of the legislation under which it was constructed 1 I 1 and a like course should be pursued in dealing with the lines extending from san francisco bay to sacramento and to portland oregon thus us tumbles like a house of cards the Fou gouthey thern pacific contention that the of the S PC P C P giuld v auld mean the mortal injury imury the practical t on of the former property As a matter of fact joint I 1 haca ne sire ise arrangements ra r a by bv ro pipii unusual in rall railroad cod operation many 1 fincel he be cited m where here cl ci ars arsi sethe ae the rails of cpr roads rons anti and where they per her rodi roda to use but such api 71 pre f far T a ar to fo sh lUlies to r amr bome el here the 11 tr the recognition of one of the simplest agencies for effecting ezoir climes in operation i other F et rs equally groundless thi th 11 aljon or fr foar that n increase of passenger pa enger end and freight rates raps would donld he be made mada bere rere by bv dimen berment wo so ref reveled eved attention hp ber the proposed sale 1 asi s under onder in tf it wpc 9 refuted by bv Pre sint alt then and it 1 ro no b or warrant now through pa paso noer ind and fr arif nf borvice would not be disrupted or affected in R n ino oua way by bv tb ohp separation sop which tbt supreme conek has li g now ordered ord pred rr wald w ld rates be increased by carrying carr jing its decision becj uon into effect opponents of dismemberment have sought to throw a doleful light on their picture by bv delineating the inconvenience and discomfort comfort ds to passengers pap through beme compelled to change cars perhaps in the middle of the night checking baggage two or three times between california rah fornia ogden and biegon Oie goll delays at terminals while waiting to be switched to other lines dismantling of shops and altering of frelent end and passenger runs rung so as to necessitate change of residence by e end and the innumerable other adhere conditions and readjustments marb an active or playful imagination can conjure up to sit 11 ll such the testimony of president sproule of the southern pacific in 1913 administers an effects 1 quietus he at that time declared that the change chance of ownership of the central pacific would not affect the oasie clas nger in any way that the southern pacific would rot be brought by bv any means in the lions maw of the union pacific that the separation then wo w ild improve both the service of the un he m pacific and central pacific by creating which always improves service that it would ault result in sn an cr in rail in the state of california that the business of af all ah the roads affected would be benefited the th gr gri i new expenditures necessary for the central pacific shifted to new shoulders the southern pacifica trea treasury 11 thereby enriched all of which reasons warranted him in affirming that the southern pacific would gain by the separation this brings bring the discussion discursion back to the original proposition if separation was not only feasible but desirable in 1913 1913 when it was voluntarily proposed and negotiated by the two roads most vitally concerned it cannot consistently be opposed as impracticable and disastrous estrous in 1922 by one of those same roads especially when the supreme court of the united states has decided and ordered that it be done d we shall furnish additional information from time to time UNION mm PACIFIC C S Y SIT EM SALT LAKE CITY |