Show I tiGHT FIGHT BEGUN IN 1908 IN UTAH CIRCUIT COURT Railroads Sustained by Majority Majority Majority Ma Ma- of Judges Who Sat in Case Washington Washing Dec 2 The The governments government's govern govern- ments ment's fight right against the Union Pacific merger began In 1905 In that year United Attorney H. H E. E Booth acting on Instructions of ot At- At General Bonaparte filed flied In tho the United States circuit court for Utah a petition to split the transcontinental railroad brought to together l ly Edward lL IL Harriman This powerful combination combination tion lion was alleged od to be in iii violation of or Sherman antitrust law the Harriman Jacob IL Otto H 11 Kahn James H. H flog nog ers henrY C. C Prick and William A A. A Clark Claris were named b by the government of the tho combination and the creators as supporters of or Its exl tenc Tho The the allegations set net forth In th the J petition on 01 UL 0 trio LI stretched over O the tho ho development nation and amI went far for into tho the entire of th the past Circuit Court Judges years Hook and Inborn anter Sanborn the called upon to pass on Adams were suit ulL case caso was built hullt governments government's The Tho h the by around tho purchase lar largely ch railroad i company In ill Pacific n of of tho the stock cent o and 1002 HIO of or It por per referred MI the tho Southern Pacific company controlling Interest to as aM or a t Pacific ext ox- ox The main line or of the Union Dillon anti Omaha Kansas City t tended from it Ogden It B to anti thence Portland Ore Oro rc reachel Sun SIW all all' antI the steamerS hy Southern P has tI a aline alino rue orient and land from rom Now w York h sea lino line liy by Francisco Portland b by wa way to San anti and Usa UtA Central Orleans of New Ne terminus of front t-om the Pacific at Ogden to Sun Han the tise Union Pacific T. T Tn n I 10 were pro pro- Two weighty The Tue Sc or of the tho case by this ph phaSe the of doce first wa was the tho question railroad corn lom outright lJ by one purchase controlling corporate stock pany or of the In in a result another of law antitrust violation ot or Sherman hall latI n which Xo No casu tho point Ji l o hook o ok decided conclusIon that since tinco uong it u tho reached St Sc- In the Northern had be been n that the tho holding of oC the tho cus case caso companies L ty u a t third was wasn wasa stock of two tile the laW lC therefore the violation loll of n a ur of the o of those two lO ong In onO one other oilier must l be rl a. lit of f tile the violation nut nUL Jud cs Van Van- aJl- aJl devanter and Sanborn Old did not lass pabs on till The second w was va Aether th the thu Union Pac and th the Sou Southern thorn Pacific competitors for fan Ln were vere presented pres The government o l Lu lo liow th the two bolero before tho the 1 1 rival al I soliciting agents In the east eMt and that 1 wore commercially r regarded as I I they the I competitors for transcontinental busl busl- The Tho court rf reached chet the tho conclusion I ness hat that the tho question of whether they tho Wore were competitors competitors WR was not to be decided entirely cn- cn I I ns as a aA A l matter of or fact governed by I testimony but was partially a question I of law Jaw As s a matter of or law It was v held I that the tho two no 10 be competitors ors i I boc the Union Pacific had to tie de- ep e- e Send the tho Southern Pacific to get p pend n l upon I From front O Ogden to San Francisco and upon I In independent railroads to bring brill freight nd passengers from front from the he cast east to It at j I u I ms K-in-ms City and Omaha In BO 10 so fInd fInd- ing the tho court concluded e th tho Union I Pa Pacific's line lino from fro m Ogden O through through- Portland to San Francisco was im- im Im Im- 1 practicable Contention coute of ond Weight was given by the majority i I of the court to the thc testimony for the railroads ds that tho purchase was vas made mac not hot to throttle competition but to prevent pro pre pre pre-I vent tho Union Pacific bRIng being bottled up UJ at Ogden It was said that Mr 11 Ir HOT HOTi i acting for Cor the Union Pacific I first tried tiled to purchase from the Southern South- South i ern em Pacific the tile old Central Pacific line extending extending- from Ogden to San Francisco In Iii this ho failed tailed Then he entered Into negotiations with wills C. C P P. Huntington for tor tho the purchase of ot a largo large block of ot the Southern Pacific stock In En that too he ho failed After Alter Mr HuntI Hunt Hunt- I died efforts were wera renewed Tho The Gould Interests were said to havo have be bea been beena a rival bidder This time Mr Ir HarrIman was successful The motive c of or the Union Pacific it was insisted was merely merel to have a friendly outlet to San Francisco The government also complained that the two I systems stems the Union Pacific antho an am and tho Southern Pacific were competitors for business from Atlantic seaboard and md Interior points of or the country on tho Llie one han hand to Portland Ore on tho other ther between tho Atlantic seaboard on jn tho the one ono hand hanti and arid Colorado and I Utah common points on the other be between ho- ho tween Portland on the one hand and Utah Colorado and e a Nevada a. a common points on the other between San Francisco on one hand and Portland on tho ho other between San Francisco on tho one hand and Montana l and Idaho common points on the other between n New ew York and Interior common points on n the one hand lland and the orient on tho the other t II Cr I Finding of Court I In each of oC these subordinate complaints com corn plaints the majority of the cot Court rt found that hat the business of or each of tho the railroads rail ran roads oads to the respective areas In iii question question ques ques- tion ion constituted so o small a a. percentage e eor of or f their total traffic that it would not note be e taken as tho the basis for tor a substantial restraint on Interstate commerce The Tile test which the majority applied In n the subordinate complaints and anil in inthe Inthe the he test determining determining- whether tho the railroads rail ran roads oads were competitors was denounced b by Judge e Hook as probably allowing the he Union Pacific to purchase lawfully lA control of or all the great parallel railroad rail rail- road oar systems of or tho the United States State Another complaint was addressed to the tho construction of or the San Pedro Los LosAn An Angelos fc Salt Lake Lako Railroad company compan Defendant Clark and his associates started to build a road to connect LOsA Los Las A 1 01 1 Y T n r tv t tue I I I io I tro t ro UI U Union Pa Pacific mc- mc Because e e of t the tho th alleged Wo d impracticability of ot constructing two lines through tho the canyon canon known as Meadow dow Valley Wash one road was built tho the court found each group roup of ot promoters taking one half the stock stockS Tho The entire court found nothing yb- yb Inti e of the tile Sherman antitrust la law In tho Union Pacific's control of or this road I IThe The Tile government o complained 1 oC or tho the purchase by tho the Union Pacific of or controlling controlling con con- trolling stock In the Northern Pacific company compan The Tho court declared It was wason on only I necessary to say the Union Pa- Pa cUlo had sold sol that stock I Still another nother complaint was the purchase purchase purchase pur pur- chase In 1904 l O-l O by b Defendants Harriman no Rogers ers Stillman Kahn nn and William Rockefeller of or In face value of the stock of the tho Atchison Topeka Santa Fe Fo Railway company and the Investment in 1006 6 b by the Union Pacific lc In 6 per por cent of or that stock Tho court found no proof that any control was thus obtained over the rival Santa Fe Fc Thus ThuR defeated In tho the circuit court th the government brou brought bt the tho case caso to the supreme court Attorney Attorn y General Wickersham Frank Franl B B. Kellogg an and A. A Severance appeared forthe for tho the government A long list of at attorneys attorneys headed b by P P. F F. Dunno Dunn of ot San Francisco and ann X H. H of or Omaha represented the d defendants |