OCR Text |
Show jiiffiK MtMi t.-,;. w -vi-. ,tv. w.'h ''. J-'-' ..-.:v;f .. .: f . ., r. t f. . ----r r"..-V'i. -,v' ' A;,''. ' ; - 'n'-"'' ,''''' t : . ' "' - . : - - . -. ' I Southern Pacific OlficM in 1913, Declaring It Feasible and Beneficial to Public's -- r;r.n 'SJA' . .N - : .. t . N 1913 the Southern Pacific made a voluntary appli- dealt with, either by way of apportionment or by - t ;T...V",::;),,';,; - cation to the Railroad Commission' of California to provisions for joint or common use, in such man- . j "' sell the Central Pacific to the Union Pacific. Thepapers ner as wju secure to both companies such full, con- ' ; f v.fj'5. ere drawn up and agreed to, but the project fell venient and ready access to the Bay and to term- V - ( . ... through because the California Commission disapproved inal facilities thereon that each company will be j 1 of the exclusion of other roadfs from the use of the line able freely to compete with the other, to serve the ' ., from Sacramento to Oakland, the Benicia Cut-off . The public efficiently, and to accomplish the purpose of j ..' . . surrender of this facility was not satisfactory either to the legislation under which it was constructed. . ' I' Advocates of Southern Pa- . the Union Pacific or the Southern Pacific and was an And a like course should be pursued in dealing ' : . j ' t . 'en i d important reason why the deal fell through. . ' with the lines extending from San Francisco Bay v f' V- . Clhc retention of Central Pa- to Sacramento and to Portland, Oregon." ' v ) I cific control profess extreme Oat of J heir Own Mouth thc Southera P, V . . . A i i Testimony of President Wilham Sproule and Chief - X c?nteS that the unmenrer of the S.-P.-C. P...,. . 1 , , , anxiety and Utter, loud warn- Counsel William F. Herrin of the Southern Pacific, and Z n Z mmiaHnjury, the practical eviscera- . ' ines as to the disastrous re- v of President eelaroi the San FranciscbOiamber of ;-tion, of the former property. ....) " . , . , ;i: ,. - i .Commerce, before the California Commission at the ; :.; ; . .;' , suits that would follow sepa- ' ; " time this sale was under discussion was to the effect - ' As a matter of fact, joint trackage arrangements .- a i . r . . . that the proposed transfer could be made without detri-. ere by ro means unusual in '-railroad operation. Many.- . ., rat.cn of those. properUes .. ' .yp.n. i , compliance with the decision ' fSK 'I ' - of the U. S. Supreme Court, tively on this i subject, was especially eimphatic in as- nitIonof one of the simplest agencies for effecting econ- , ! serting that the change in ownership of the Central operation - May 29, 1922. The numer- ific would not affect adversdy either passenger or om.es in opcrau . i J freight traffic would not give the Union Pacific a JK r n OUS perils of disruption are dominant position, would mean active competition with Uther tears Lqually Urounaiess ,.., afavorableeffecton .rates and Iseryice iand wouldbehigh- rllegation or far that nn increase of passenger .1 ! pathetically .pointed out, in ly beneficial to the Southern Pacific in relieving t of the ftnd frei,rht rales would be r-ade necessary by dismen- , w . obligation of furniRhmgtensf millions o bermentalo recdved attention -hen tte propo-ed sale, support of , the appeal to the i betterments and improvements of the Central Pacific - a7nder .enn.iderUon in 1913. It was refuted by . 1 f T Ti. U J r .i ' en0mil .ey fl"i chww tondedin- it-fii-onle then, andit has no basis or warrant people pf Utah and of the in- tfpbtedn. etc Chief Counsel Hnrra i was no less em- p,Mw and freight service wmM not ' . Phatic in declaring as his opinion that the proposed sale li:l .fft !n nmr ininnous wav bv th- : termountain country to array L,M be "to tt. benefit the jer, brge ta,nt of the fV i themselves on the side of the ) JX? "r-nt of the ,erri. juj bo iKed by cin U, decision . . ' mitViprn Parifir in nnrni tirm Yet today, when the Supreme Court by its decision acme in ojjpoaiiiuii , of tMng tQ be jJone whkh the .. (. QgjjnthaBouyht to throw to the Supreme Court's order Southern Pacific officials were desirous- of doing in R doleful light on their picture by delineating the in- . , . 1913, thofe same officials, and Southern Pacific propa- v convenience and discomfort to pvsengers through be- ! This brings into view a change ' ' ' . gandists and advocates 'generally, arise In furious re- ' .' :njp compelled to change, cars (perhaps In the middle of ' j - . i; "' sistance and claim' that, the proposed separation of the the night): checking baggaee two or three times be- i ! of heart on the part of the h two roads would be. little less than a national calamity,. .tween California. Ogden and Oregon: delays at termin- . ; i vr-. ; and would be attended by the most disastrous conse- ns wliile waiting to be Switched to other lines jdls- I Southern Pacific SO complete ; ., quences to the roads themselves and the territory they . mantling of shops and altering of fre?ght and pssen- ' 'v j - v ' ,y - serve. No new perils' or menaces have arisen in this ger runs so as to necessitate change of residence - by ' ; r i and sudden as to claim more ' situation since 1913. If perils did not exist then and emotoyees: and the innrmerable other adverse con-" " '. ... . the Southern Pacific stoutly maintained that they did ditions and readjustments which ntfactire or playful 1 than passing notice. A bit .V not they do not exist now. imagination can en jurp up. To all such apnrehensions, -:.v the testimony of President Fproule of the Southern Pa- i of not remote history will , Court Decision Guarantees cific in 191 3 administers an effectual quietus. Heat. ! ... . , . Al Pot:n that time declared that the change of ownership of the prove illuminative on the sub- fmpie rrozccuon Centra pacif;c would rot affwt the passenger in any , The fear is expressed today by Southern Pacific way: that the Southern Pacific would not be brought ject. ppokesmen tbat compliance with the Supreme Court's "by w means in the lion s maw of the Union Pacific ; :f dismemberment decision would wreck and ruin various that the separation then Proposed Tild inve both j parts of that system in California by leaving them with- the service of the Un-o-i Pacific and Central Pacific by " out connections "in the air" so to speak. This fear is creating comoctition whifli always mproves service: . ! 1 ' f pictorially presented m one of the maps circulated in 1ht ?t wo-1d .-uli m -m in ra'' in I . . connection with Southern Pacific recent publicity. Rut it the State of California r that the business of all the roads . A had just as much foundation in 1913 as it has in 1U22. affected would be benefited, the great new expenditures '. . ''i in fact it had more foundation then than now; for necessarv for the Central Pacific shifted to new should- whereas the negotiations for the scle of the Central Pa. e.rs, the Southern Pacific's treasnry thereby enriched-- - :.5j' cific to the Union Pdfi at that time came to naught ' all of which reawns warranted him in affirming that because of the California Commission's insistence' oi the Southern Pacific would gam by ta saratiou. certain joint .use requirements which both tlie Southern , X ' Pacific and the 'Union. Pacific were disinclined to ai- This brings the discussion back to the f X prove, the Supreme Court of the Unitwl States in its I . t . What the Union Pacific ha, 4 decision of May 29. 1922. affords protection o the most original proposition: If separation was not X What the Union lacinc na, . Southern Pne fV after it ony feasible but desirable in 1913. when i done it will continue to do as- Fv,rU have divested itself of "the Central TiicifT. On - j j t j 1 this jnt the l;mgi-'f the derision h av rothin? to it was voluntarily proposed and negotiated I sist the communities along lis I desirc(, Sv wgy of h(t rmJ evnrnetm pf . twQ rQads mOJjl concerned, it lines to grow and prosper. It the court's intention. Says the court: . , . , . . , t . . , cannot consistenlly be opposed as lmprac- is a matter of record that no "The sfveral terminal lme aM cut-off len.l- ... . . . moo i e I ,. t ... (u. ing to San Francisco Pav which have been con. ticable and disastrous in lyZ by one Ot line has ever come under the ,"c y , ; ,, ... , . . , . . . n u .u c I structed or acquired during the umf Kid control of. those came roads, especially ,when the OU- f control of the Union Pacific 1 thc flVRtcmf ftfr of aonl, d!rPct Qf I which has not been improved In I or convenient nccers to in U.iy end to the rnn- . i i .i . . i j I facilities and service to .the pul, I . cipal terminal facilities. aout tho Bay. .hould bo. cid m orciereG that it be dene. A hc' J We Shall Furnish Additional Information From Time to Time iDiXlMhl Ii hikii ku U k a ii ibiii. SALT LAKE CITY 'j5 .. - - , - tu.-r-, ..w-.r.aKwiw.-a.' rawm.JNM.- |