OCR Text |
Show oTiifMral Pan ig in nib lull in 1922 If Desirable in 191 3, Why Disastrous Southern Pacific Officials Favored Plan in 1913 Declaring it Feasible and Beneficial to Public's Interests, Territory Served and Roads Themselves :: ;: venient access to the Bay al facilities about the Bay, ahotV 1913 the Southern Pacific made a voluntary application to Railroad Commission of California to sell the Central INthe wuiuwu use, in such manner companies such full, convenientnd the Bay and to determine! f t company will be able freei Pacific to the Union Pacific. . Advocates of Couthern Pacific tention of Central Pacific control fess extreme anxiety and re- pro- utter loud 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 from Sacramento to Oakland, the Benlcla .The 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. warnings as to the disastrous results Testimony of Jesldent William Sproule and Chief Counsel William F. Herrin of the Southern Pacific, and of President that would follow separation Wheeler of the San Francisco Chamber Commerce, before the California Commission at the time this sale was under discus- o fthose properties in compliance with the deci- sion was to the effect that the proposed transfer could be made without detriment to the public Interest and with vast benefit to the Southern sion of the U. S. Supreme Court, May 29, 1922. The numerous perils of dis- ruption are pathetically pointed out, in support of the appeal to the people of Utah and how the intermountain coun- try 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 will history prove illuminative on the subject. and the territory Served by It President Spropule, 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 Pacific Union Pacific a dominant position, would mean active competition with a favorable effect on rates ?nd 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. Chief Council Herrin was no less emphatic in declaring as his own opinion that the proposed sale would be "to the benefit," of the -- .Southern PaciRc company and the benefit of the territory we terve." 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 arizen in this situation since 1913. If peril did not exist then and the Southern PmcllU stoutly maintained that the,-- did not they do not exist now. Court Decision Guarantees Ample Protection . What the Union Pacific has done it will continue to doassist the com- munities along its lines to grow and The fear is express today by Southern Pacific spokesmen that compliance with the Supreme Court's dlmemhrmnf a els ion would wreck and ruin various paru o smem in Calfornla by leaving them without so to speak. This fear Is map. circulated In connection with 8ou?hS foYidSon'S publicity But It had just as 1,1 IHi California Commission's existence tninV? ment. which both the Southern Pciflc?nd th vTJT' prosper. It is a matter of record that no line has ever come under the not been improved in facilities and service to the public k iiV Thus tumble., like a house of cards, contention that the unmerger of the a P n . the moral injury, the practical evisceration, of perty. ' tt,fc. . . a matter of fact. Joint trackage irm means unusual in railroad operation. Man, As cited where ,BlUsc(( carriers use the rails of other roa4,IJlfb permit other roads to use theirs. But such casern, lar to shippers to require enumeration here. They ffiasj recognition of one of tho simplist agencies tor J mles in operation. , iff. Other Fears Equally Groundless The allegation or fear that an increase of prns freight rates would be made necessary by diimenbem: received attention when the proposed sale wai uds-i- t ation in 191S. It was refuted by President 8prot k it has no basis or wannant now. Through paosenj a' ght service not be disrupted or affected hisjIC way by the separation which the fjupreme Coort kuw ed, nor would. rates be increased by earring ttt tefc would- - effect Opponents of dismemberment hare sought tottrwi tul light o ntheir picture by delineating tho to passengers through being eoniptllti cars (perhaps in the middle of the night:) ehecklsfk two or three times between California, Ogdee u4 Onlays at terminals while waiting to be switch to otU dismantling of shops and altering of freight ui t runs so as to necessitate change of residents k; C and the inumerable other adverse conditiou vA menu which an active or playful lmaglnatloi eu or To all such apprehensions, the testimony of PmUsi of the Southern Pacific tn'Ull administers as oltea tus. He at that time declared- that the chug of onr the Central Pacific would not affect the paooemw that the Southern Pacific would not be brought If the lion's maw of the Union Pacific;" that tho proposed would improve both the service of tho Cti and the Central Pacific by creating competition ti!A improves service;" that It would result la facilities in the 8tate of California; that ths buainof; roads affected would be benefited, the great ot necessary for the Central Pacific shitted W m Southern Pacific's treasury thereby enriched u r was warranted hlxn In affirming that tho loo51 would gala by the separation. t ineosrafe-dlscomfo- rt - uto1; " " t This brings the discussion back to the al proposition: ..If separation was cot sible but desirable in 1913 when it wari- ly proposed and negotiated by the frJ J roost vitally concerned, it cannot ccri fros- t- Twn 8ec 2 MO. tax Hon t T. con- trol of the Union Pacific which has E7 tta. purpose of the legislation nnder" hiSlf0081 ed And a like course shou'ld be with the line extending nPttM to Sacramento and to Portlaad Owgon? Cut-o- ff Out of Their Own Mouth 'teti uniwfe v.- - tentlon. Says the court: clearness of the court's "The several terminal lins and to San Francisco Bay which haw or acquired during systems for the purpose of hfl alalre?, ,Wldln or co tn- - by one of those same roads, espccUfy Supreme Court of the. United States te ft.H. X (' to UnionlPacif ic Sstei SALT LAKE CITY file, tor of Ma. 8 and ordered that it be done. We shall furnish additional information from time 1(0 7.17 l g( tO b(. : ti rd, Jone X 40 R IS p ri N , LJo'",s i r of I PR? onel f ,B E I rit, V 4 i f 1 M. M. S B |