| OCR Text |
Show THE TIMES-NEW- S. NEPHL UTAH eparattai of Central Pacific fr om So nthern Pac lbc If Desirable in 1913, Why Disastrous in 1922? Southern Pacific Officials Favored Plan in 1913, Declaring It Feasible and Beneficial to Public's Interests, Territory Served and Roads Themselves. Advocates of Southern Pac cific retention of Central control profess extreme anxiety and utter loud warnings as to the disastrous results that would follow separation of those properties in compliance with the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court, May 29, 1922. The numerous perils of disruption are pathetically pointed out, in support of the appeal to the people of Utah and of the Pa-cifi- country to array themselves on the side of the Southern Pacific in opposition to the Supreme Court's order. This brings into view a change of heart on the part of the Southern Pacific so ' complete and sudden as to claim more than passing notice. A bit of not remote history will prove illuminative on the N 1913 the Southern Pacific made a voluntary application to the Railroad Commission of California to sell the Central Pacific to the Union Pacific. The papers were drawn up and agreed to, but the project fell through because the California Commission disapproved of the exclusion of other roads from the use of the line The from Sacramento to Oakland, the Benicia Cut-of- f. surrender of this facility was not satisfactory either to the Union Pacific or the Southern Pacific and was an important reason why the deal fell through. , Out of Their Own Mouth Testimony of President William Sproule and Chief Counsel William F. Herrin of the Southern Pacific, and of President Wheeler of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, before the California Commission at the time this sale was under discussion was to the effect that the proposed transfer could be made without detriment to the public interest and with vast benefit to the Southern Pacific and the territory served by it. President Sproule, who is surely qualified to speak authoritatively on this subject, was especially emphatic in asserting that the change in ownership of the Central Pacific would not affect adversely either passenger or freight traffic, would not give the Union Pacific a dominant position, would mean active competition with a favorable effect on rates and service and would be highly beneficial to the Southern Pacific in relieving it of the obligation of furnishing tens of millions of dollars for betterments and improvements of the Central Pacific, besides enormously heavy fixed charges, bonded indebtedness, etc. Chief Counsel Herrin was no less emphatic in declaring as his opinion that the proposed sale would be "to the benefit, the very large benefit, ef the Southern Pacific Company and the benefit of the territory we serve." Yet today, when the Supreme Court by its decision of last May orders the very thing to be done which the Southern Pacific officials were desirous of doing in 1913, those same officials, and Southern Pacific propagandists and advocates generally, arise in furious resistance and claim that the proposed separation of the two roads would be little less than a national calamity, and would be attended by the most disastrous consequences to the roads themselves and the territory they serve. No new perils or menaces have arisen in this situation since 1913. If perils did not exist then and the Southern Pacific stoutly maintained that they did not they do not exist now. Court Decision Guarantees Ample Protection The fear is expressed today by Southern Pacific spokesmen that compliance with the Supreme Court's dismemberment decision would wreck and ruin various parts of that system in California by leaving them without connections "in the air" bo to speak. This fear is pictorially presented in one of the maps circulated in connection with Southern Pacific recent publicity. But it had just as much foundation in 1913 as it has in 1922. In fact it had more foundation then than now; for whereas the negotiations for the sale of the Central Pacific to the Union Pacific at that time came to naught because of the California Commission's insistence on certain joint use requirements which both the Southern Facific and the Union Pacific were disinclined to approve, the Supreme Court of the. United States in its decision of May 29, 1922. affords protection of the most ample and explicit kind to the Southern Pacific after it shall have divested itself of the Central Pacific. On thin point, t he language of the decision leaves nothing to be desired by way of defining the scone and clearness of the court's intention. Says the court: lead"The several terminal lines and cut-ofconto San Francisco been have which ing Bay structed or acquired during the unified control of the two systems for the purpose of affording direct or convenient access to the Bay and to the principal terminal facilities about the Bay, should be What the Union Pacific has done it will continue to do assist the communities along its lines to grow and prosper.. It is a matter of record that no line has ever come under the control of the Union Pacific fs which has not been Improved in facilities and service to the We Shall Furnish us 4 ' i I il i n dealt with, either by way of apportionment or by provisions for joint or common use, in such manner as wiD secure to both companies such full, convenient and ready access to the Bay and to terminal facilities thereon that each company will 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. And a like course should be pursued in dealing with the lines extending from San Francisco Bay to Sacramento and to Portland, Oregon." Thus tumbles, like a house of cards, the Southern PaP. cific contention that the unmerger of the S. P.-would mean the mortal injury, the practical evisceration, of the former property. C. As a matter of fact, joint trackage arrangements are by no means unusual in railroad operation. Many instances might be cited where carriers use the rails of other roads and where they permit other roids to use theirs. But such cases are too familiar to shippers to require enumeration here. They illustrate the recognition of one of the simplest agencies for effecting economies in operation. Other Fears Equally Groundless The allegation or fear that an increase of passenger and freight rates would be made necessary by dismen-bermealso received attention when the proposed sale was under consideration in 1913. It was refuted by President Sproule then, and it has no basts or warrant now. Throutrh passenger and freieht service would not be disrupted or affected in any injurious way bv the separation which the Supreme Court has now ordered, nor would rates be increased by carrying its decision into effect. nt Opponents of dismemberment have sought to throw a doleful light on their picture by delineating the inconvenience and discomfort to passengers through being compelled to change cars (perhaps in the middle of the night) : checking baggage two or three times between California, Ogden. and Oregon ; delays at terminals while waiting to be switched to other lines; dis- mantling of shops and altering of freight and passenger runs bo as to necessitate change of residence by employees; and the innumerable other adverse conditions and readjustments which an active or playful imagination can conjure up To all such apprehensions, the testimony of President Sproule of the Southern Pacific in 1913 administers an effectual quietus. He at that time declared that the change of ownership of the Central Pacific would not affect the passenger in any way; that the Southern Pacific would not be brought "by any means in the lion's maw of the Union Pacific ;" that the separation then proposed would improve both the service of the Union Pacific and Central Pacific by creating competition which "always improves service ;" that it would result in an increase in rail facilities in the State of California: that the business of all the roads affected would be benefited, the great new expenditures necessary for the Central Pacific shifted to new shoulders, the Southern Pacific's treasury therebv enriched all of which rearons warranted him in affirming that the Southern Pacific would gain by the separation. This brings the discussion back to the original proposition: If separation was not only feasible but desirable in 1913 when it was voluntarily proposed and negotiated by the two roads most vitally concerned, it cannot consistently be opposed as impracticable and disastrous in 1922 by onu of those same roads, especially when the Supreme Court cf the United States has decided and ordered that it be done. Additional Information From Time to Time YSTEI SALT LAKE CITY b4 |
