OCR Text |
Show iPT DOUBTED IflHElI LAW IUJD APPLY Two Points Prominent in Majority Opinion Handed Down in Case of the Southern Pacific. ST. LOUIS, March 10. The litigation litiga-tion instituted by the- government to dissolve the so-called Hairiman railway Eleiii, paitinliy successful when the si'rrf mc ccDit reversed a decision of the district court for Minnesota, and ordered or-dered the Union Pacific to diveft itself of the Southern Pacific, took a new angle an-gle today when the federal court for tlieyTjiirict of Utah denied a petition lyi the government to separate the Central Cen-tral l'acific irom the Southern Pacific. The principal Central Pacific line is that part of the Southern Pacific between be-tween Oakland and Ogden. The decision was filed today at Salt Lake City, where the originaj suit was brought. The arguments in. the case were heard before Circuit Judges Sanborn of St. Paul, Hook of Leavenworth and Garland Gar-land of Washington in St. Louis more than a year ago, these judges sitting as the district court of Utah. After the decision was filed at Salt Lake City, whither it had been sent by Judge Hook, who prepared the opinion, a cop- was given out here at the office of Judge Sanborn. Judge Sanborn concurred con-curred with Judge Hook and Judge Gax-land Gax-land wrote a dissenting opinion, a copy of which was not available here. Two Main Points. Two points stand out in the majority opinion. First, it is doubtful, say's the opinion, whether the Sherman anti-trust law can reach proprietary relations formed prior to the passage of the law. The opinion points out (he long record of the Central Pacific lineB being op-orated op-orated as a part of the Southern Pacific Pa-cific system, and continues: "If the anti-trust act be construed to leach proprietary relations, as distinguished distin-guished from those of a mere continuous continu-ous operating character formed long piior to its passage, whereby divergent ai.il hjcital lilies of road to widely siiJTed "ateways or points in the Jji'cnts of traffic movement are held Jiu a single ownership or control, its "''forccmoiit would have such a destruc-trNp destruc-trNp effect upon established accepted railiVd systems of the country that theirJusiou within the intent of congress con-gress may well be doubted." Not Injurious. The second point given prominence is that the operation of the Central Pacific Pa-cific as a part of tho Southern Pacific eysleui bas not been shown to have had ! n injurious effect on shippers. It was 1 '-called today that during the arguments argu-ments in the case the attorneys for the government sought to show that the Southern Pacific had discriminated against the Oakland-Ogden route in favor fa-vor of the Sunset transcontinental linos, and that attorneys for the Southern Pacific denied this contention. It was also recalled that during the arguments one of rne attorneys for the government was asked this question by Judge Sanborn: "If no wrong to shippers has been shown, how can the court issue an injunction in-junction ?" The opinion filed today states that under the control of the Central Pacific Pa-cific by the Southern Pacific the "government "gov-ernment and tho people were being served adequately. ,J During the arguments the government called attention to the railway laws of California which, it was alleged, were violated by the merger. On this point the court held that the anti-trust law does not "pick up the laws of states for original enforcement, but deals with actual conditions affecting interstate commerce, whether they are affected by those laws or not. " Whether the government will appeal to the supreme court was not known here today. |