. Railway problems; . logg and Severance had tried the case against theSouthern Pacific in the Circuit Court. Mr. Severance, however,bore the burden of examining and cross-examining witnesses inthe case at bar, and was the best informed, as he was perhaps theablest, of the Government counsel. The original report of the Interstate Commerce Commissionhad dealt with the Harriman lines as a great combination ofcompeting railroads.^ The Circuit Court rendered its decision onJune 24, 1911, and contrary to general expectation this provedunqualifiedly adverse to the Governments contentions. The casetu
. Railway problems; . logg and Severance had tried the case against theSouthern Pacific in the Circuit Court. Mr. Severance, however,bore the burden of examining and cross-examining witnesses inthe case at bar, and was the best informed, as he was perhaps theablest, of the Government counsel. The original report of the Interstate Commerce Commissionhad dealt with the Harriman lines as a great combination ofcompeting railroads.^ The Circuit Court rendered its decision onJune 24, 1911, and contrary to general expectation this provedunqualifiedly adverse to the Governments contentions. The caseturned on the question of competition. Two judges ruled thatthe Union Pacific and the Southern Pacific were connecting andonly incidentally competing lines.^ Judge Hook filed a dissentingopinion. Appeal was taken to the Supreme Court in Octoberof the same year. The facts in the case seem reasonably clear. The so-calledHarriman group of railroads in 1912 comprised a mileage of 1 12 I. C. C. Rep. 277. 2 iss Fed. Rep. 1 : i V/t V L^^. 0 \ >W ^ Sif % u 1 ^ * ^\ K % ^ )^ .x :&_]._ x ^-—\ / / ^ _/ -V
Size: 2033px × 1229px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910, bookidrailwayprobl, bookyear1913
