Ogden Evening Standard | 1910-10-19 | Page 5 | Central and Union Pacific

CENTRAL AND UNION PACIFIC. The San Francisco Chronicle, reviewing the evidence presented in the Harriman merger case, says: "It needs no argument to prove that the original Central Pacific and original Union Pacific were not competitors, "All know that the two original roads formed one continuous transcontinental line which might very properly have been under one management. "Bnt(when out of extortionate rates and extortionate profits in construction contracts the original owners of the Central Pacific had secured the money to build the Southern Pacific, the two roads became be-came very bitter competitors. For, in order to build up their new southern route, the quartet not only diverted to their 'Sunset route traffic which they had theretofore delivered to the Union Pacific, but violated their duty as trustees to the Central Pacific stockholders by that same diversion for that same purpose. And when in process of time the Union Pacific also flourished and acquired the Oregon Short Line route to Portland, the two "systems" very different institutions from the original single-track roads were competitive, and strongly so, at many points. And when the Harriman 'merger' was effected all competition stopped short. "The point where the unholy tie should be cut is notr'at Ogden. but in this city. The important thing is to separate the Central.' Pacifio from the Southern Pacific. When that has been done there would be no reasonable objection to a merger of the Central and1 Union Pacific in one ownership, different from the ownership of the Southern Pacific,"