| Show E aaa separation TM MM central r vre ME 0 V 51 av IC from southern amm MM C ItLie if re desirable r Is IN in I 1 1913 why r r disastrous in 1922 southern pacific officials favored plans plan iu 4 1913 9 Ie declaring claring it feasible and beneficial to publics interests territory served and roads themselves r e it P advocates of southern pacific retention of central pacific control profess extreme anxiety and utter loud warnings as to the disastrous results that would follow separation of those properties in 41 compliance with the decision 0 of the U S supreme court may 20 2 1922 the numerous 01 perils of disruption are pathetically pointed out an n support of the appeal to the people cople p of utah and P n d of or the intermountain t ter mountain country to array themselves on he side of the southern paca pacio 1 c in opposition to the supreme court s order this brings into view a change of heart on the part of the southern pacific so cimpl complete ta and sudden as to claim more than passing passin ca notice A bit of not remote history will prove illuminative on the sub A eject what the union has done it will continue to dc ns gist the 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 which bag not been improved in facilities and sen ice to the pub lic it 94 al il IN N 1913 the southern pacific pacio 1 made a voluntary olun tary application to the railroad commission of california to bell sell the central pacific to the unit junira unira n pacific the papers wore 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 benicia cutoff cut off the surrender of this facility was not satisfactory eithe to the union pacific or the southern pacific and was an important reason why the deal fell through out of 1 7 heir own mouth i testimony of Pr eidet william sproule and chief counsel willium 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 tinder 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 autler t 11 dively on this subject was especially emphatic a assorting asserting that the change in ownership of 0 L the central pacific would not affect adversely either cither passenger or freight traffic would not give gie the union pacific a dominant position would mean active competition with afao rable effect ln rates and service and would be high iv 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 beside enormously heavy fixed charges bonded indebtedness debt edness etc chief counsel herrin was in as no less emphatic in declaring as his opinion that the proposed salo sale would be to the benefit the very larre of the southern pacific company and the benefit of the territory we ser serve sere e 1 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 ts and advocates generally ane arige in furious resistance si and claim that the proposed separation of the two roada roads would be little less than a national calamity and would be attended by the moat most disastrous consequences to the roads themselves and the territory they serve no new p ails 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 elst exist now court decision Guaran guarantees teas ample protection the fear is expressed today by southern pacific spokesmen that compliance with the supreme courts dismemberment decision would areck and ruin various parts of that system in california by leaving them without connections in the air so to speak this fear is pictorially pic tonally presented in one of the maps circulated in conn connection eption 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 whereat the negotiations for the sale of the central pa cilto to the union pacific at that time came to naught because of the california commissions insistence on certain joint use requirements which both the southern pacific and end the union pacific were disinclined to approve the si st preme court of the united states in its decision of may 29 1922 affords protection of the most ample and explicit kind to the southern Sout heri pacific after it shall have diverted itself of the central Cen pacific on this point the language langu of the decision leaves nothing to be desired by way of defining the scope and clearness of the courts intention says the court the rhe several terminal lines and cutoffs cut offs leading to san francisco bay buy which have been constructed ted or acquired during the unified control of the two systems for the purpose of affording direct or convenient access to the bay and to tho principal terminal facilities about the bay should bo ba dealt with either by way of apportionment or oe by provisions for joint or common use in such man ner nor as will secure to both companies such full coni lenient and ready c cess to the bay and to term inal facilities thereon that each company will be able freely to compete with the other to serve the J 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 r to sacramento and to portland oregon thus tumbles like a house of cards the south southern pa cefic contention that the un merger of the S PC P C P would mean the tho mortal ortal injury the practical evis cera tion of the former property As a matter of fact joint arrangements are by no means unusual in railroad operation many instances might be cited w m here carriers cirri ers use the rails of other roads and where they permit other raids to use theirs but such case enso are to familiar to shippers to require enumeration here they ther illustrate the recognition of one of the simplest agencies for effecting economies in operation other fears equally groundless the allegation allo gation or fear that an increase of passenger gc and freight rates would be made nece sarv by desmen berment also received attention v ahen hen the proposed sale was under consideration in 1913 it WITS refuted by president sproule then and if hns no b vii or warran warrant 4 now through passenger r and freab would not be disrupted or affected in any injurious way by the separation which the supreme court IT bs b s now ordered would rates be increased by carrying its decision into effect opponents of dismemberment have sought to throw a doleful light on their picture by delineating the inconvenience and discomfort to passengers paa through be ing i impelled tomp elied to change cars per perhaps in the middle of the night checking bagg baggage acre or th thee ce times between california ogden and oregon delays at terminals abile waiting to bo be switched to other lines dismantling of shops and altering of freight and passenger runs ses as to necessitate hange i of regi residence dence 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 ih th A i change of ownership of the central pacific would not affect the ras passenger in any way that the southern pacific would not bo be brought by any means in the lions 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 improve Im proe service that it would result in an increase in rail r facilities in the state of california that the bushes busi of all the roada roads affected would be benefited the great new expenditures necessary for the central pacific shifted to new now should the southern treasury thereby enriched all of which reasons warranted him in affirming that the southern pacific would gain by the separation this abrl bring brings i nga s the discussion back to the original proposition if separation was not only feasible but desirable in 1913 when it was voluntarily proposed and nt negotiated by the two roade most va vitally itally concerned conc arned it cannot COW consistently intently ba be opposed as a impracticable and disastrous in 1922 by one of those same roads especially when the supreme court of the united state states has decided and ordered that it be done we shall 1 aall furnish additional injo information ta or nation from time to time to U nl 7 1 ilia LJ V sri J rif SALT LAKE CITY f |
