w -tflMt/MW & itft- — a MUuIttlS PETITION TO Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States, i BV The Receivers and Shippers ’% BssoDlalion OF CINCINNATI, OHIO. ■12 Mrjg THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Sjr: The Petitioner is The Receivers’ and Shippers’ Associa- tion of Cincinnati, Ohio, with a membership of over two hundred and forty (240) individuals, firms and corporations, doing business in the City of Cincinnati and vicinity, and including also in its membership the following business organizations of Cincinnati; The Chamber of Commerce. The Business Men’s Club. The Manufacturers’ Club. The Lumbermen’s Club. The Pork Packers’ & Slaughterers’ Association. The Cincinnati Metal Trades Association. The Carriage Makers’ Club. The Live Stock Commission Merchants’ Association. The Cincinnati Furniture Exchange. The Cincinnati Produce Exchange. The Cincinnati Paint Club. The Pine Lumber Dealers’ Association. The Cincinnati Branch — National League Commission Mer- chants. The Common Carriers especially complained of are : The Southern Railway Company, a corporation organized ... under the laws of Virginia; and the railroad corporations con- trolled by the Southern Railway Company, and hereinafter specif- 0 ically named. The Atlantic Coast Line Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Connecticut; and the railroad corporations con- trolled by the Atlantic Coast Line Company, and hereinafter specifically named. Complaint is also made against: The St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad. 3 8 ~ 6 ' Z'OCTAs, The New Orleans & Northeastern Eailroad. The Norfolk & Western Railway. The Illinois Central Railroad. The Seaboard Air Line Railroad. The Central of Georgia Railroad. The grounds of complaint are : 1. That The Southern Railway Company is a combination in restraint of trade and commerce between the States, within the meaning of Section 1 of the Statute of July 2, 1890, commonly known as the Anti-Trust Act; and is an attempt to monopolize and a monopoly of trade and commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 of said statute. 2. That the Atlantic Coast Line Company is a combination in restraint of trade and commerce between the States, within the meaning of Section 1 of the Statute of July 2, 1890, commonly known as the Anti-Trust Act; and is an attempt to monopolize and a monopoly of trade and commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 of said statute. 3. That The Southeastern Mississippi Valley Association is a combination in restrain of trade and commerce between the States, within the meaning of Section 1 of the Statute of July 2, 1890, commonly known as the Anti-Trust Act; and is an attempt to monopolize and a monopoly of trade and commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 of said statute. 4. That The Southeastern Freight Association is a com- bination in restraint of trade and commerce between the States, within the meaning of Section 1 of the Statute of July 2, 1890, commonly known as the Anti-Trust Act; and is an attempt to monopolize and a monopoly of trade and commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 of said statute. 5. That the Joint Agreement between the Southeastern Mississippi Valley Association and the Southeastern Freight Association is a contract in restraint of trade and commerce, resulting in a combination and conspiracy of the parties to and the beneficiaries of such agreements, in restrain of trade and com- merce, within the meaning of Section 1 of the Anti-Trust law; and is an attempt to monopolize and a monopoly in restraint of trade and commerce, within the meaning of Section of 2 of said statute. 6. That on December 1st and 2d, 1904, in the City of New York, at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, a meeting was held by the officials of the following named railroads: 3 The Southern Railway Company and the following named Companies controlled by it, viz. : The Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Com- pany, The Alabama Great Southern Railway Company, and The Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company. The Atlantic Coast Line Company, and the following named Companies controlled by it, viz. : The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, The Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway Company, The Atlanta and West Point Railroad Company, The Western of Alabama Railroad Company, and The Georgia Railroad Company. The St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company, The New Orleans and Northeastern Railroad Company, The Norfolk and Western Railway Company, The Illinois Central Railroad Com- pany, The Central of Georgia Railway Company, and The Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company. That at said meeting the above named Companies combined and conspired to make and publish simultaneously classified rates of freight and commodity freight rates from Ohio and Mississippi River crossings to various points in the Southeast; particularly to points in the State of Georgia — and conspired and agreed to publish simultaneously classified rates of freight and commodity freight rates from Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Boston and interior Eastern points to various points in the Southeast; partic- ularly to points in the State of Georgia (a more detailed statement in regard to which will hereinafter be more specifically set forth). That the action of the above named roads is a combination and c-onspirarcy, resulting in contracts and agreements in restraint of trade and commerce, within the meaning of Section 1 of the Statute of July 2, 1890, commonly known as the Anti-Trust act ; and is an attempt to monopolize and a monopoly of trade and commerce among the several States, within the meaning of Section 2 of said statute. 7. That the combinations referred to in subdivisions 1 to 6 inclusive are not only violations of the Anti-Trust law, but they seriously discriminate against the cominercial interests of the Northern and Western States in favor of the Eastern States in their trade relations with the Southern States, have seriously dam- aged the commercial interests, of said States, and if permitted to continue will even more seriously damage said interests. HISTORY OF THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, SHOWING THE LINES OF RAILROAD OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY IT. The following history of the Southern Railway Company, showing its origin and development into a colossal combination, completely controlling the trade and commerce of a large portion of the Southern States, is taken in the main from Poor’s Manual of Railroads, an authority whose statements are accepted as correct by all persons interested in railroad properties. The Southern Railway Company was chartered by the State of Virginia on February 20, 1894, and organized June 18, 1894. It immediately began acquiring control of railroads in the South, and by June 30, 189G, it owned and controlled the following rail- road mileage : MILES. Washington, D. C., to Richmond, Va., via Danville, Va., and Charlotte, N. C., to Atlanta, Ga. (about) Bristol, Tenn., via Knoxville and Chattanooga to At- lanta, Ga. ; thence via Birmingham, Ala., to Green- ville, Miss Rome, Ga., to Lauderdale, Miss Atlanta, Ga., to Brunswick, Ga. (about) 790.00 852.00 288.20 350.00 2,280.20 Various other lines owned, leased, or controlled 2.374.13 Total length of all lines Southern Railway System, June 30, 1896 4,654.33 A more particular statement of the names of the railroads acquired, the territory traversed by them, and the means by which they were acquired, will be found in Poor’s Manual of Railroads for 1897, pages 761 to 776 inclusive. During the fiscal year of 1897 this Company acquired by purchase, lease or other arrangement, the Georgia Midland Rail- road Company, and the Strasburg and Harrisonburg Branch of the Virginia Midland Railway. In August, 1897, the Virginia Midland Railway Company was purchased by the Southern Railway Company, and in June, 1898, was merged into it as a part of its system. In June, 1898, the Knoxville, Cumberland Gap and Louisville Railway Company was also merged into the Southern Railway Company. In February, 1898, the Hartwell Railroad Company was ac- quired. On February 26, 1898, the ownership of The Memphis and Charleston Railway Company was acquired. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1899, the Company acquired the following railroads: The Carolina & Cumberland Gap Railway Co. The Richmond & Mecklenburg Railroad, The Mobile & Birmingham Railroad. The South Carolina & Georgia Railroad. The Atlantic & Yadkin Valley Railroad. The Carolina Midland Railroad Co. The Seviern & Knoxville Railroad Co. The Northern Alabama Railroad Co. The Southern Railway Company and the Louisville and Nash- ville Railroad Company also purchased for joint account the Birmingham Railroad property from The Tennessee Coal and Iron Company. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1900, this Company acquired The Atlantic and Danville Railroad Company, The North- eastern Railroad Company of Georgia, The Sumter and Wateree Railroad, and the Lockhart Railroad Company. In December, 1900, the control of The Louisville, Evansville and St. Louis Consolidated Railroad Company was acquired. In April, 1901, the control of The Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company was acquired by the purchase of 90 per cent, of its capital stock and more than 70 per cent, of its general mortgage bonds. In 1901, the Company purchased the majority of the capital stock of the Augusta Southern Railroad. During the year ending June 30, 1902, there were added to the lines operated by the Company two sections of The Ensley Southern Railway, and the extension of the former Knoxville and Augusta Railroad. In July, 1902, the Company purchased the securities of The Atlanta, Valdosta and Western Railway Company, and The St. Johns River Terminal Company; and on October 16, 1902, the greater part of The Atlanta, Valdosta and Western Railway was conveyed by deed to The Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company. The Southern Railway Company and The Cincinnati, Hamil- ton and Dayton Railway Company, jointly control The Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company. Lessees of The Cincinnati Southern Railway ; and the President of The Southern Railway Company is also President of The Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company. In 1903 The Southern Railway Company and The Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company purchased for joint account a majority of the stock of The Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville Railway Company (Monon Route). It is possible that a careful examination of the railroads owned and controlled by The Southern Railway Company will dis- close some omissions in the foregoing statement, but if such be the case, the omissions will be supplied by the following statement up to June 30, 1903, and accompanying map taken from Poor’s Manual of Railroads, 1904, of the lines of railroads owned or oper- ated by lease or other arrangement by The Southern Railway Com- pany : Lines of Railroad Operated. — Statement showing in detail the mileage of the lines -operated by the Southern Railway Company, June 30, 1903 : Main Lines and Branches. miles. * Alexandria, Va., to Greensboro, N. C 280.05 Neapolis to West Point. Ya 179.00 Charlotte, N. C., to Augusta, Ga 190.49 Columbia to Greenville, S. C 145.52 Salisbury, N. C., to Morristown, Tenn 231.37 Bristol to Chattanooga, Tenn 241.55 Stevenson, Ala., to Memphis, Tenn 271.47 Tuscumbia to Florence, Ala 7.60 Moscow to Somerville, Tenn 13.10 Ooltewah Junction, Tenn., to Brunswick, Ga 409.00 Austell, Ga., to State Line, Miss 260.70 I State Line, Ala., to Greenville, Miss 179.10 tStoneville to Percy, Miss 23.20 tltta Bena to Webb, Miss 34.60 Atlanta Junction, Ga., to York, Ala 270.50 Alexandria to Bluemont, Ya 54.55 Union Street Branch, Alexandria, Ya 1.60 Manassas Junction to Harrisonburg, Ya 112.89 Calverton to Warrenton, Ya 8.90 Franklin Junction to Pittsville, Ya 7.10 Manchester Junction to Rocketts, Ya 1.00 Belle Isle Junction to Belle Isle, Ya 0.70 Granite, Ya., to Westham Granite Quarry 3.00 Clarksville, Ya.. to Durham, N. C 55.10 Oxford to Henderson, N. C 12.75 Pomona to Wilkesboro, N. C 100.15 Ashville (Murphy Junction) to Murphy, N. C. .. 122.40 Charlotte to Taylorville, N. C Hodges to Abbeville, S. C Belton to Anderson, S. C Aiken to Edgefield, S. C Embreeville Junction to Embreeville, Tenn Rogersville Junction to Rogersville, Tenn Clinton to Harriman Junction, Tenn K. 0. &. . Jc., Knoxville to Cumberland Gap, Tenn. . . . Knoxville Belt Ore Bed Junction to Watts Mines, Tenn Knoxville to Welland, Tenn Briceville “Y” to Panola, Tenn Oliver Springs to Big Mountain, Tenn Cleveland, Tenn., to Cohutta, Ga North Rome, Ga., to Attalla, Ala Atlanta to Fort Valley. Ga Cochran to Hawkins ville, Ga Dock Jc. to Turtle River Docks. Brunswick, Ga. . Villa Rica, Ga., to Mines Howell to Belt Junction, Ga Marion Junction to Akron, Ala Wiilton to Mobile Junction, Ala Gurnee J unction to Blocton, Ala Woodlawn to End Belt Road, Bess°mer, Ala North Birmingham to Coalburg, Ala Coalburg to Mines 9 and D., Ala Cardiff to Brazil Mines, Ala Jefferson to Blossburg, Ala Offerman to Hooper Mines, Ala America Junction to America, Ala Oakman to Coal Valley, Ala Patton Junction to Patton, Ala Corona to No. 3 Mines, Ala Littleton, Ala., to Coal Mines Castleman Junction to Castleman, Ala Spring Garden. Ala., to Mines Lulu to Athens, Ga Cave Springs to Lopez, Ga North Augusta, S. C.. Branch Ardella to Belle Ellen, Ala Seymour to Coal Mines, Ala Pinners Point, Va., to N. & C. R. R. Conn * Louisville to Lexington, Kv *Lawrenceburg to Burgin, Ky *Versailles to Georgetown, Ky Venice and Carondelet Belt, E. St. Louis, 111.. . . Belleville Junction to Belleville, 111 E. St. Louis. 111., to State Line, Tnd E. St. Louis. Madison and Granite Citv Branch, E. St. Louis, 111 r 65.65 11.58 9.98 23.57 13.00 16.00 30.44 65.50 5.37 3.40 26.21 4.94 3.26 14.80 61.60 102.30 10.10 1.80 2.92 3.30 53.00 34.00 14.30 20.50 6.40 2.60 1.60 1.91 0.60 2.20 2.20 1.10 0.90 3.50 3.63 4.41 38.93 5.23 1.65 2.90 2.24 0.36 80.12 25.97 16.74 6.86 1.14 146.77 2.40 8 ttState Line, 111., to New Albany, Ind 118.28 tt Jasper to Evansville, Ind 54.22 ttRockport Junction to Rockport, Ind 16.15 tf Lincoln City to Cannelton, Ind 22.72 Total main lines and branches 4,388.94 Less not operated, Anderson Branch 9.98 Main line and branches operated 4,378.96 Controlled by Oivnership of Securities. A. — Leased (933.95 miles) : MILES. Southern Railway, Carolina Division (714.42 miles) — « Cayee to Hardeeville, S. C 128.63 Perry to Sievern, S. C 7.64 Charleston, S. C., to Augusta, Ga 136.91 Branchville to Columbia, S. C 67.10 * Kingsville, S. C., to Marion, N. C 208.50 Blacksburg to Gaffney, S. C 10.50 Burton Branch, S. C 4.60 Taylor’s Mill Branch, S. C 1.00 Biitmore, N. C., to Spartanburg Junct., S. C. . . . 65.90 Spartanburg to Alston, S. C 67.83 Sumter Junction to Sumter, S. C 15.81 Mobile and Birmingham Railroad — Marion Junction to Mobile, Ala 150.35 Richmond and Mecklenburg Railroad — Kevsville to Clarksville, Ya 31.30 Georgia Midland Railay — McDonough to Columbus, Ga 97.88 B. — Not leased (465.16 miles). MILES. State University Railroad — University to Chapel Hill, N. C 10.20 x North Carolina Midland Railroad — Mooresville to Winston-Salem, N. C 53.52 High Point, Randleman Asheboro & Southern R. R. — High Point to Ashboro, N. C 26.80 Yadkin Railroad (43.70 miles) 1 — Salisburg to Norwood, N. C 41.00 Union Copper Mines Branch, N. C 2.70 Elberton Air lane Railroad — Toccao to Elberton, Ga 50.60 Knoxville and Ohio Railroad (69.32 miles) — Knoxville to Jellico, Tenn 65.30 Coal Creek to Cambria, Tenn 4.02 Sievern and Knoxville Railroad — Batesburg to Sievern, S. C 17.44 ^ 9 Atlantic and Yadkin Railroad (165.12 miles) — Sanford to Mt. Airy, Y. C 130.95 Climax to Ramseur, Y. C 18.74 Stokesdale to Madison, Y. C 11.39 Greensboro to Proximity Mills, N*. C 2.02 Mt. Airy to Granite Quarry, S. C 2.02 Ensley Southern Railroad (28.46 miles) — Ensley, Ala., to near Warrior River 19.22 Parrish, Ala., to Year Little Warrior River 9.24 Total controlled 1,459.11 Total main line and branches 4,388.94 Total controlled 1,459.11 # Total covered by Southern Railway Securities . . . 5,848.05 Leased Lines. MILES. Yorth Carolina Railroad (224.34 miles) — Goldsboro to Chalotte, Y. C 222.44 Caraleigh Junction to Caraleigh Mills, Y. C 1.90 Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line Railway — Charlotte, Y. C., to Atlanta, Ga 267.30 Eranklin and Pittsylvania Railroad — Pitts ville to Rocky Mount, Va 29.90 Atlantic and Danville Railroad (282.16 miles) — Danville to West Yorfolk,- Va 205.10 James River Junction to Cleremont Wharf, Va. (Y. G.) 50.36 Hitchcock Junction to Hitchcock Mills, Va 8.33 Buffalo Junction to Buffalo Lithia Springs, Va.. 3.90 Shoulders Hill to Shops, Va 10.02 Virgilina, Va., to Mines, Y. C. (Y. & S. C. R.R.) 4.45 Lockhart Railroad — Lockhart Junction to Lockhart, S. C 11.81 Total leased 817.51 Operated Under Agreement. MILES. Roswell Railroad (12.55 miles) — Chamblee to Roswell, Ga 9.80 Morgan Falls Branch, Ga 2.75 Trackage Rights. MILES. Baltimore and Potomac Railroad — Washington, D. C., to South end Long Bridge. . 2.05 Washington Southern Railroad — South end Long Bridge to Alexandria, Va 4.90 IO Central of Georgia Railway (4.04) miles — Peters Street to Union Depot, Atlanta, Ga 0.67 Central Jc. to W. Broad St., Savannah 3.37 Augusta & Summerville E. E. Entrance to Union Depot, Augusta, Ga 0.51 Georgia Railroad (1.10 miles) — Entrance to Union Depot, Augusta, Ga 0.23 Entrance to Union Depot, Atlanta, Ga 0.87 Western and Atlantic Railroad — W. & A. Crossing to Dalton, Ga 0.20 Alabama Great Southern Railroad (46.13 miles) — Woodlawn to Birmingham, Ala 3.60 Birmingham to Mobile Junction, Ala 14.97 York, Ala., to Meridian, Miss 27.16 Central Pass. Sta. to Louisa St., Chattanooga. . . 0.40 Louisville and Nashville Railroad (15.69 miles) — Entrance to Union Depot. Birmingham, Ala. . . . 0.52 L. & N. Junct. to Union Depot, Florence, Ala. . . 0.20 Cumberland Gap, Tenn., to Middlesboro, Ky. . . . 4.41 Middlesborough Belt and Bennetts Fork Branch. 9.81 Lipscomb St. to Passenger Sta., Mobile, Ala. . . . 0.75 Atlantic Coast Line (326.82 miles) — Pinners Point, Va., to Tarboro, N. C 99.50 Tarboro to Selma, N. C 54.88 Hardeeville, S. C., to Central Junct., Ga 16.70 Four-Mile Crossing to Brunswick Union Sta., Ga. 2.94 Central Junction, Ga., to Jacksonville, Fla 152.08 Entrance to Union Station, Savannah, Ga 0.72 Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway — Chattanooga, Tenn.. to Stevenson, Ala 38.00 Jacksonville Terminal Company — Entrance to Depot, Jacksonville, Fla 1.47 St. Johns River Terminal Companv — Near Grand River Crossing, Fla., to Bay Street Freight Depot, Jacksonville, Fla 5.99 Savannah Union Station Company — Cent. Junct., Ga.. to Union Denot, Savannah, Ga. 5.38 St. Louis Terminal Railroad Association — At East St. Louis, Hi 3.18 Fast St. Louis and Cairo Railroad — Relay Junction to Broadway, E. St. Louis, 111.. . 0.10 Jacksonville and St. Louis Railway — Through Centralia, 111 1.80 Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern Railroad — At New Albany, Ind 0.06 Chicago and Alton Railway — Near Fast St. Louis, 111 0.70 Illinois Central Railroad (0.83 mile) — Eleventh St. to Seventh St. Sta., Louisville, Ky. 0.50 Entrance to Calhoun St. Sta., Memphis. Tenn. . . 0.33 1 1 Kentucky and Indiana Bridge and Railroad (9.90 m.) — New Albany, Ind., to Louisville, Ky 9.90 Total trackage 468.85 *'The mileage of the Charlotte and Rapidan Railroad, from Charlotteville to Orange, Va., 28.22 miles, is included in this length, although that line as yet has not become formally merged with the Southern Railway. t These lines constitute the Southern Railway in Mississippi. ** Southern Railway in Kentucky, tt Southern Railway in Indiana. RECAPITULATION. MILES. (a.) Lines owned (4,378.96 miles). Main Lines: In Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois. . . .3,000.95 Branches and Spurs: In District of Columbia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois 1,378.01 ( b .) Proprietary railroads 1,459.11 (c.) Leased railroads 817.51 (d.) Operated: Roswell Railroad 12.55 (e.) Trackage rights 468.85 Total length of lines operated by Southern Rail- way Company, June 30, 1903 7,136.98 In addition to the above the Southern Railway Company con- trols the following railroads, which are operated independently : MILES. Augusta Southern Railroad — Augusta to Tennille, Ga 82.5 Blue Ridge Railroad — Owned — Anderson to Walhalla. S. C 34.02 Leased — Southern Railway — Anderson to Belton, S. C " 9.98 Danville and Western Railway — Owned — Stokesville, Va., to Stuart, Va 70.00 Leaksville Junction to Leaksville, N. C. 8.00 Trackage Right — Southern Railway, Danville to Stokesland, Va 5.00 Total operated 83.00 Hartwell Railroad — Hartwell to Bowersville. Ga 10.10 Northern Alabama Railway — Sheffield to Parrish, Ala 95.56 Riverton to Riverton Junction, Ala 11.00 Various branches to mines 8.03 Total 114.59 St. Johns River Terminal Company — Jacksonville to Grand Crossing, Fla 6.39 Alabama Great Southern Railway Company — Wauhatchie, Tenn., to Meridian, Miss 290.49 Proprietary Road — Gadsden to Attalla, Ala 5.90 Lines used under trackage contracts 13.02 Leased Road — Belt Railway of Chattanooga : In and around Chattanooga, Tenn 24.04 Total length of all lines operated June 30, 1903 333.45 MILES. Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company — Main Line — Mobile, Ala., to Columbus, Ivy 472.0 Cairo Extension — South Columbus, Ky. to, East Cairo, Ivy 21.0 Columbus Branch — Artesia, Miss,, to Columbus, Miss 14.0 Starkville Branch — Artesia, Miss., to Starkville, Miss 11.0 Aberdeen Branch — Muldon, Miss., to Aberdeen, Miss 9.0 Montgomery Division — Columbus, Miss., to Mont- gomery, Ala 167.2 Warrior Branch — Tuscaloosa, Ala., to Warrior Coal Fields 9.5 Blocton Branch — Eline, Ala., to Cahaba Coal Fields 11.8 Mobile and Pritchards to Bayou la Batre, Ala.. . 34.1 Bay Shore Railway, Delchamps to Alabama Port, Ala 4.3 Leased Line — St. Louis & Cairo R. R. ; Cairo to E. St. Louis, 111 158.6 912.5 Deduct Mobile & Bay Shore Ry. (not operated) . 38.4 Length of lines operated, June 30, 1903 874.1 The Southern Railway Company first became a combination of railroads leading into the Southeastern States from Virginia gateways and South Atlantic ports, and then enlarged the com- bination by the purchase of stocks, securities, or lease of or other arrangements with railroads from Ohio and Mississippi River gate- ways and Gulf ports into the common territory reached from the Virginia gateways and South Atlantic ports. The foregoing statement relating to the Southern Railway Company makes clear the following facts: . i3 1. That this corporation has come into absolute control of the interstate trade and commence of a part of what is com- monly known as the Southern territory; a part of the remaining interstate trade and commerce of this territory being controlled by the Atlantic Coast Line Company, to which more particular refer- ence will be made hereafter. 2 . That this control has been obtained by the purchase by the Southern Railway Company of the controlling stock of other railroads or by the ownership of their securities or by lease. 3. That the roads thus brought into combination with the Southern Railway Company are in certain cases parallel roads, in other cases competing roads, continuous roads or intersecting roads. 4. That by this combination of roads the Southern Railway Company has the power, and the inevitable tendency of the combi- nation is not only to restrain interstate trade and commerce in the section of territory controlled by it, but to unreasonably restrain such trade and commerce, because the main purpose of every monopoly is to benefit itself and not the public. 5. That a combination owning or controlling railroads leading from all of the principal gateways and from all directions of the compass into a common territory of destination has the power to restrain trade and commerce among the several states as effectually as does a combination which consists of two parallel and competing roads : and It will further appear from the evidence set forth in another part of this petition — That such combination not only has the power, but is now exercising it, to restrain and restrict trade and commerce between the Northern and Western States and the Southern States by making and charging rates from the Ohio and Mississippi River gateways and the Southern States that are unreasonably high as compared with the rates between the East and Southeast and the Southern States. From the foregoing statement of facts by the now well settled construction of the Anti-Trust Law of 1890, it is apparent that the Southern Railway Company is a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and a monopoly of such interstate trade and commerce, within the meaning of that law, and should be enjoined by the United States as directed by said law from continuing as such combination, conspiracy and monopoly. 14 By Sections 1 and 3 of the Anti-Trust Law of 1890, “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or con- spiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations’’ is declared to be illegal; by Section 2, of the same act, it is made illegal for any person or persons to “mo- nopolize or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several states or with foreign nations;” and by Section 8, of said Act, “the word ‘person’ or ‘persons’ wherever used in this act shall be deemed to include corporations and asso- ciations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any state, or the laws of any foreign country.” In the Merger case (Northern Securities Co. vs. United States, 193 U. S. 197), decided March 14, 1904, Mr. Justice Harlan, speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States, took occa- • sion to summarize all previous decisions under the statute, and to state the rules of law established by them. This summary is as follows (page 329) : “The first case in this court arising under the Anti-Trust Act was United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1. The next case was that of United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Asso- ciation, 166 U. S. 290. That was followed by United States v. Joint Traffic Association, 171 U. S. 505, Ilophins v. United States, 171 IT. S. 578, Anderson v. United States, 171 U. S. 604, Addy- ston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 211, and. Mon- tague & Co. v. Lowry, 193 U. S. 38. To these may be added Pearsall v. Great Northern Railway, 161 U. S. 646, which, al- though not arising under the Anti-Trust Act, involved an agree- ment under which the Great. Northern and Northern Pacific Pail- way Companies should be consolidated and by which competition between those companies was to cease. In United States v. E. C. Knight & Co., it was held that the agreement or arrangement there involved had reference only to the manufacture or produc- tion of sugar by those engaged in the alleged combination, but if it had directly embraced interstate or international commerce, it would then have been covered by the Anti-Trust Act and would have been illegal; in United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, that an agreement between certain railroad com- . panies providing for establishing and maintaining, for their mu- tual protection, reasonable rates, rules and regulations in respect of freight traffic, through and local, and by which free competi- 15 tion among those companies was restricted, was, by reason of .such restriction, illegal under the Anti-Trust Act; in United States v. Joint Traffic Association , that an arrangement between certain railroad companies in reference to railroad traffic among the states, by which the railroads involved were not subject to competition among themselves, was also forbidden by the Act; in Hopldns v. United States and Anderson v. United States , that the act embraced only agreements that had direct connection with interstate commerce and that such commerce comprehended inter- course for all the purposes of trade, in any and all its forms, including the transportation, purchase, sale and exchange of com- modities between citizens of different states, and the power to Tegulate it embraced all the instrumentalities by which such com- merce is conducted; in Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United, States, all the members of the court concurring, that the act of Congress made illegal an agreement between certain private com- panies or corporations engaged in different states in the manu- facture, sale and transportation of iron pipe, whereby competi- tion among them was avoided, was covered by the Anti-Trust Act; and in Montague v. Lowry, all the members of the court again concurring, that a combination created by an agreement between certain private manufacturers and dealers in tiles, grates and mantels, in different States, whereby they controlled or sought to control the price of such articles in those states, was condemned by the act of Congress. In Pearsall v. Great Northern Railway, which, as already stated, involved the consolidation of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railway Companies, the court said : The consolidation of these two great corporations will una- voidably result in giving to the defendant (the Great Northern) a monopoly of all traffic in the northern half of the State of Min- nesota, as well as of all trans-continental traffic north of the line of the Union Pacific, against which public regulations will be but a feeble protection. The acts of the Minnesota Legislature of 1874- and 1881 undoubtedly reflected the general sentiment of the pub- lic, that their security is in. competition. We will not incumber this opinion by extended extracts from the former opinions of the court. It is sufficient to say that from the decisions in the above cases certain propositions are plainly dedueible and embrace the present case. Those propositions are: That although the act of Congress known as the Anti-Trust Act has no reference to the mere manufacture or production of articles or commodities within the limits of the several states, it i6 does embrace and declare to be illegal every contract, combination or conspiracy, in whatever form, of whatever nature, and who- ever may be parties to it, which directly or necessarily operates in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations. That the act is not limited to restraints of interstate and international trade or commerce that are unreasonable in their nature, but embraces all direct restraints imposed by any combi- nation, conspiracy or monopoly upon such trade or commerce. That railroad carriers engaged in interstate or international trade or commerce are embraced by the act; That combinations even among private manufacturers or dealers whereby interstate or international commerce is restrained are equally embraced by the act; That Congress has the power to establish rules by which interstate and international commerce shall be governed, and, by the Anti-Trust Act, has prescribed the rule of free competition among those engaged in such commerce; That every combination or conspiracy which would extin- guish competition between otherwise competing railroads engaged in interstate trade or commerce , and which would in that way restrain such trade or commerce, is made illegal by the act ; That the natural effect of competition is to increase com- merce, and an agreement whose direct effect is to prevent this play of competition restrains instead of promotes trade and com- merce ; That to vitiate a combination, such as the act of Congress condemns, it need not be shown that the combination, in fact, results or will result in a total suppression of trade or in a com- plete monopohq but it is only essential to show that by its neces- sary operation it tends to restrain interstate or international trade or commerce or tends to create a monopoly in such trade or com- merce and to deprive the public of the advantages that flow from free competition; That the constitutional guarantee of liberty of contract does not prevent Congress from prescribing the rule of free competi- tion for those engaged in interstate and international commerce; and, That under its power to regulate commerce among the sev- eral States and with foreign nations, Congress has authority to enact the statute in question. 7 No one, we assume, will deny that these propositions were distinctly announced in the former decisions of this court. They can not be ignored or their effect avoided by the intimation that the court indulged in obiter dicta. What was said in those cases was withing the limits of the issues made by the parties.” The case of the United States vs. The Northern Securities Co . was brought to invalidate and restrain a combination having for its purpose the consolidation or merger of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railway Companies owning lines which, in part, were parallel and competing. This merger was attempted by the organization of a corpora- tion in New Jersey, with power. “To acquire by purchase, subscription or otherwise, and to> hold as investment any bonds or other securities or evidences of indebtedness, or any shares of capital stock created or issued by any other corporation or corporations, association or association's, of the State of New Jersey, or of any other state, territory or country.” The Supreme Court of the United States held that the inhibi- tion of the Anti-Trust law against contracts or combinations in the form of trust or otherwise to restrain interstate trade, and its inhibition against attempts to monopolize such trade or commerce required that the court should look beyond the mere form of a transaction to its substance, and that whatever form the transac- tion might take, if its effect were to restrain interstate trade or commerce, such transaction was condemned by the act ; and that no State therefore could grant authority to any corporation to acquire control of any of the railroads of the country when such control had a tendency to restrain interstate trade or commerce. Whether the facts have any bearing on the question of the illegality of the Southern Railway Company combination, it is nevertheless true (1) that the company was not organized until 1894, four years after the passage of the Anti-Trust Law, and (2) that every step taken by it in its combination was taken after the passage of that law and with full knowledge of its inhibitions. Had this company organized as did the Northern Securities Company and taken over the different roads now owned and con- trolled by it, there could be no dispute that such a combination would be in violation of the law. Is there any difference in the contemplation of the law because the company which has taken over the railroads is itself a railroad company • instead of a hold- ing company? If the substance of these acts of combination, and i8 not the mere form they are made to assume, is regarded, and if the purpose of the law and the results which it seeks to prevent are borne in mind, it is impossible to differentiate in principle the combination effected by the Northern Securities case and that by the Southern Railway Company. The law forbids every “combination in the form of trust or “ otherwise ” in restraint of trade. The word “otherwise” was undoubtedly inserted in the law by Congress, lest an attempt to specifically enumerate all combinations in restraint of trade might be found to be unsuccessful in failing to specify some form of combination which Congress had not foreseen, but which the abil- ity and ingenuity of lawyers might invent. In the third syllabus of the Northern Securities case it is declared that : “The Anti-Trust Act embraces and declared to be illegal every contract, combination or conspiracy, in whatever form, or of what- ever nature, or whoever may be parties to it, which directly or necessarily operates in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states or with foreign nations.” Again in the syllabus of the same case it is held that: “To vitiate a combination, such as the act of Congress con- demns, it need not be shown that such combination, in fact, results, or will result, in a total suppression of trade or in a com- plete monopoly, but it is only essential to show that by its necessary operation it tends to restrain interstate and international trade and commerce, or tends to create a monopoly in such trade or com- merce, and to deprive the public of the advantages that flow from free competition.” In his argument in the Northern Securities case, Attorney General Knox said: “The Anti-Trust Act was purposely framed in broad and gen- eral language in order to defeat subterfuges designed to evade it. It is framed in sweeping and comprehensive language which in- cludes every combination, regardless of its form or structure, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, and every person, natural or artificial, monopoliz- ing, attempting to monopolize, or combining with any other per- son to monopolize any part of such trade or commerce.” (North- ern Securities Co. v. United States, 301.) “It is not essential to show that the person or persons charged with monopolizing or combining have actually raised prices or suppressed competition, or restrained or monopolized trade or com- merce in order to bring them within the condemnation of the act. 1 9 It is enough that the necessary effect of the combination or monop- oly is to give them the power to do those things. The decisive question is whether the power exists, not whether it has been exer- cised. In the Trans-Missouri , Joint Traffic , Pearsall and Addyston Cases, supra , this court held that it was immaterial that trade or commerce had not actually been restrained— that it made no differ- ence, even, that rates and prices had been lowered, it being enough to bring the combination within the condemnation of the act that it had the power to restrain trade or commerce. The very existence of the power, under these rulings, constitutes a restraint.” (North- ern Securities Co. v. U. S., 303.) By the express language of the act, too, a combination need not affect all of the trade or commerce in a certain territory to fall within the inhibition of the law. It is sufficient if it affects “any part of the trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations,” and the Supreme Court has given to this lan- guage the meaning which, upon its face, it clearly has. In the Northern Securities case Mr. Justice Holmes said (page 402) : “Again the statute is of a very sweeping and general charac- ter. It hits ‘every’ contract or combination of the prohibited sort, great or small, and ‘every’ person who shall monopolize or attempt to monopolize, in the sense of the act, ‘any part’ of the trade or commerce among the Several States.” And on page 407 he declares that “Size has nothing to do with the matter. A monop- oly of ‘any part’ of commerce among the States is unlawful.” If the decision in the Northern Securities case goes no further than to establish the principle that a holding company can not combine competing roads, and gives permission to a railroad com- pany in place of a holding company to combine in itself as many roads as it sees fit, then all the labor taken to secure the decision in that case, the elaborate arguments of counsel and the extended opinions of the court were concerned only with a matter of form. The decision would have no substantial or practical effect; and notwithstanding the decision in that and other cases under the Anti- Trust Law, one railroad company in time may come into the possession and control, in some form or another, of many or all of the railroads in the United States. The fact that the Southern Bailway Company is a state corpo- ration is immaterial. In the syllabus of the Northern Securities case (page 199) it was hold that : 20 “No State can, by merely creating a corporation, or in any other mode, project its authority into other States, so as to prevent Congress from exerting the power it possesses under the Constitu- tion over interstate and international commerce, or so as to exempt its corporation engaged in interstate commerce from obedience to any rule lawfully established by Congress for such commerce; nor can any State give a corporation created under its laws authority to restrain interstate or international commerce against the will of the nation as lawfully expressed by Congress. Every corpora- tion created by a State is necessarily subject to the supreme law of the land.” In his argument in the Northern Securities case, Attorney General Knox said (page 306) : “Congress has the power to legislate upon the subject of con- solidations of railroad corporations when the consolidations form interstate lines; in the absence of legislation by Congress the power exists in the States to legislate upon the subject, but in the presence of legislation by Congress the power of the States over the subject is excluded.” (Noyes on Intercorporate Relations, Section 19, citing Louisville & Nashville v. Kentucky, 161, U. S. 677.) In the course of his argument in the same case (page 308), Attorney General Knox also said: “Ownership of a majority of its stock constitutes the control of a corporation when the inquiry is whether a combination or monoply has been formed to stifle competition between two or more rival and competing railroads.” Noyes on Intercorp. Rel., Section 284; Farmers’ L. & T. Co. v. N. Y. & C. R. R. Co., 150 N. Y. 410, 424; People v. Chicago and Gas Trust Co., 130 Illi- nois, 268, 291 ; Greenhood on Public Policy, 5; Richardson v. Cran- dall; 48 N. Y. 343; Salt Co. v. Guthrie, 35 Ohio Stat. 666; Mil- bank v. N. Y., L. E. & W., 64 How. (N. Y.) 29; Pearsall v. Great Northern Railway, 161 U. S. 646, 671; Pullman Co. v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 115 IJ. S. 587 ; Pa. R. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 7 Atl. Rep., 368, 371. In the course of his argument (page 309) he also said: “It (The Northern Securities Co.) constitutes a trust in another light also. As the courts throughout the country held with practical unanimity that the class of Trusts’ just described is illegal, a second class was invented of corporations that have acquired control of other corporations b} r purchasing their stock. 4 his organization is of the same general character as the preced- ing, but the form is changed in order to escape the force of the 21 decision of the courts relating to corporate partnerships.” Beach on Monopolies and Industrial Trusts, Section 159. The Securities Company clearly comes within this second classification of “trusts.” Noyes on Intercorp. Bel., Sections 310, 285, 393; Peo- ple y. Chicago Gas Trust Co., 130 Illinois, 268, 292, 302, citing Gas Light Co. v. People’s Gas Light Co., 121 Illinois, 530; Amer- ican Glucose Case, supi'a. If one railroad may combine numerous other railroads in one corporation, then the way is open for the control of all the rail- roads of the country by one or more corporations. That such a control would be in violation of the Anti-Trust Law is evidenced by the opinion of Mr. Justice Brewer in the Northern Securities case, in which he said : “If the parties interested in these two railroad companies can, through the instrumentality of a holding corporation, place both under one control, then in like manner, as was conceded on the argument by one of the counsel for the appellants, could the con- trol of all the railroad companies in the country be placed in a single corporation. Nor need this arrangement for control stop with what has already been done. The holders of $201,000,000 of stock in the Northern Securities Company might organize an- other corporation to hold their stock in that company, and the new corporation holding a majority of the Northern Securities Company and acting in obedience to the wishes of a majority of its stockholders would control the action of the Securities Com- pany and through it the action of the two railroad companies, and this process might be extended until a single corporation whose stock was owned hv three or four parties would be in practical control of both roads, or, having before us the possibilities of com- bination, the control of the whole transportation system of the country. I can not believe that to be a reasonable or lawful restraint of trade.” It might be suggested however, that while the combination of parallel or competing roads by the Southern Railway Company is in violation of the law, its combination of continuous or intercept- ing roads is not. The Southern Railway Company combination, as complained of, does not present the question whether a railroad company may purchase outright and take a deed for a road which merely con- tinues its line, or the deed for a road which intercepts its line. The Southern Railway Company has not taken deeds for the roads leading from the Ohio and Mississippi gateways, which it owns 22 and controls. (or if there may be any such instances, they are exceptional ) . It has purchased . a sufficient amount of the stock of the corporations owning such roads to control them by electing the directors and officers of the same, and by such control main- taining the separate corporate identities of the corporations, it has the power to evade the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Law, and thus to restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of the Anti-Trust Law. A brief reference to certain sections of the Interstate Com- merce Law and the construction put upon them by the United States courts will make apparent the existence of this power. Section 4 of the Interstate Comlnerce Law is as follows: "That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier, subject to the provisions of this act, to charge or receive any greater com- pensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier, within the terms of this act, to charge and receive as great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance; provided, however, that upon application to the Commission ap- pointed under the provisions of this Act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the ComPnission, be author- ized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances, for the transportation of passengers or property; and the Commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which said designated common carried may be relieved from the operation of this section of this act.” In Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company v. Osborne, 52 Fed. Rep. 912, the facts and the decision were as follows: The Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company owned and operated a railroad from Missouri Valiev, a town on the western border of Iowa, to Chicago, 111. The Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley Railroad Company owned a railroad running east and west through Nebraska, and connecting with the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company at Missouri Valley. The Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley Railroad Company was an independent corporation, hut a majority of its stock be- longed to the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, and in this way it was controlled by it. 2 3 It was held by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth (8th) Circuit, that when the two connecting companies united in a joint tariff, they formed for the connected roads practically a new and independent line, so far as continuous transportation over „ them was concerned, and that, therefore, the long and short haul > clause of the Interstate Commerce Law would be applicable to such transportation ; but that so far as local tariff on its own line was 4 concerned, each road retained its independence and identity, and neither road was compelled to adjust its own local tariff to suit the other, nor compelled to make a joint tariff with the other. The same principle was declared in Tozer v. United States, 52 Fed. Eep. 917, a case decided by the same court, both opinions being announced by Mr. Justice Brewer, of the United States Supreme Court. In the Osborne case it is said : % “Neither company is bound to adjust its own local tariff to suit the other, nor compellable to make a joint tariff with it. It may insist upon charging its local rates for all transportation over its line.” And further on this language is used : “No power exists at common law, and none is given by the act to court or commission, to compel connecting companies to contract with each other, to abandon full control of their separate roads, or to unite in a joint tariff.” ! See also U. S. v. Mellen, 53 Fed. Rep. 229; Interstate Com- merce Commission v. C., N. 0. & T. P. Ry. Co., 56 Fed. Rep. 925; Allen v. Lewis v. Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co., 98 Fed. Rep. 21. In view of these decisions, it is apparent how a combination such as the Southern Railway Company is, in the operation of * the roads controlled by it by the ownership of the stock or securities of such roads, when such roads merely continue or intercept its line, and are not parallel or connecting roads, may evade the provi- ^ sions of Section 4 of the Interstate Commerce Law. The Southern Railway Company controls these roads as com- pletely as if it had a deed for the roads, and yet it is able to treat them as separate roads, establishing different and separate rates over them, and not compelled to make any joint traffic arrange- ment for through transportation over them. Such a combination is clearly one which falls within the spirit of the inhibitions created by the Anti-Trust Law, and is an evasion which the law will not permit. 24 But whatever the method by which a combination of railroads is effected, whether by purchase of stock, or by taking deeds for the roads, and whether the roads are parallel, competing, continuous or intercepting, nevertheless, such a combination is in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, if it gives such combination the power, as in the case of the Southern Railway Company, to directly restrain interstate trade and commerce into a common territory (Southern) in favor of one section of territory (Eastern) as against another section of territory (Northern and Western). It may be suggested, however, that the construction of the Anti- Trust Law, urged in this petition, logically leads to the conclusion that private individuals are prevented from purchasing the control- ling stock in competing or continuous roads, and as such a con- clusion is manifestly unsound, the premise from which it is drawn is also unsound. The answer to this suggestion is twofold: (1) that the conclu- sion referred to does not follow from the assumed premise that a railroad corporation is forbidden by the Anti-Trust Law to effect such a combination as the Southern Railway Company has effected ; (2) that even if such a conclusion does follow, it has not yet been held by the Supreme Court that a combination of individuals can, by securing control of different railroads, restrain interstate trade and commerce. As bearing upon the first branch of this answer, what was said by the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Brown, in the case of Pearsall v. Great Northern Railway, 161, U. S., 646, is pertinent : “Doubtless these stockholders could lawfully acquire by indi- vidual purchases, the majority, or even the whole of the stock of the organized company, and thus ultimately obtain its control; but the companies would on the whole remain separate corpora- tions, with no interests but such in common. This, though possible, would not be altogether feasible, and would require considerable time for its accomplishment. In a few years the two companies, by sales of capital stock so acquired would become dissevered, and the interests of the stockholders of each company become antag- onistic.” In the Northern Securities case (page 362), Mr. Justice Brewer recognizes the distinction between an individual or another corporation acquiring stock in any corporation. He says: “A corporation, while by fiction of law recognized for some purposes as a person, and for purposes of jurisdiction as a citizen, 25 is not endowed with the inalienable rights of a natural person. It Is an artificial person, created and existing only for the convenient transaction of business. In this case it was a mere instrumentality by which separate railroad properties were combined under one con- trol. That combination is as direct a restraint of trade by destroy- ing competition as the appointment of a committee to regulate Tates. The prohibition of such a combination is not at all inconsist- ent with the right of an individual to purchase stock.” It may be urged that the Southern Railway Company combina- tion has already accomplished its purpose, and it is now too late for the Government to seek relief against the combination. This ‘contention was made in the Northern Securities case, and disposed of by the Court in the following manner : “It is here suggested that the alleged combination has accom- plished its object before the commencement of this suit, in that the ‘Securities Compan}' had then organized, and had actually received a majority of the stock of the two constituent companies; there- fore, it is argued, no effective relief can now be granted to the Government. This same view was pressed upon the Circuit Court, and was rejected. It was completely answered by that Court when it said : ‘Concerning the second contention, we observe that it would be a novel, not to say absurd, interpretation of the Anti- Trust Act to hold that after an unlawful combination is formed and has acquired the power which it had no right to acquire, namely, to restrain commerce by suppressing competition, and is proceeding to use it and execute the purpose for which the combina- tion was formed, it must be left in possession of the power that it bas acquired, with full freedom to exercise it. Obviously the act, when fairly interpreted, will bear no such construction. Congress aimed to destroy the power to place any direct restraint on inter- state trade and commerce, when by any combination or conspiracy, formed by either natural or artificial persons, such a power had been acquired; and the Government may intervene and demand relief as well after the combination is fully organized as while it is in process of formation. In this instance, as we have already said, the Securities Company made itself a party to a combination in Testraint of interstate trade and commerce that antedated its organ- ization, as soon as it came into existence, doing so, of course, under "the direction of the very individuals who promoted it/ ” While Section 7 of the Anti-Trust Law gives to every person injured by its violation a right of action at law to recover threefold ihe damages sustained by him, yet this remedy, even if applicable 26 here, is entirely inadequate to meet the difficulties presented by the present situation. “Such actions at law would be multitudinous, and measured only by the number of plaintiffs which would be many hundreds, multiplied by the number of shipments which would be many thousands. Each of said shipments would involve only a small amount of money, and the necessity for a prompt recovery therefor, together with the division of said claims among many plaintiffs, and the fact that they would be divided between a number of de- fendants, would prevent the joinder of only a very few of such claims in one action. To so proceed would be tedious and expensive, and would defeat the object in view* of making the par- ties whole on account of their damages and losses, and in view of the fact that the injuries complained of are continuing, the parties injured would be compelled repeatedly to bring new actions and would become involved in constant litigation, which parties will not consent to undertake/ 5 The parties represented by this petitioner would willingly proceed in Equity to enjoin the continuance of the combinations complained of, if the Anti-Trust Law empowered them to do so, but the United States Supreme Court has held that private parties can not proceed in Equity under the Anti-Trust Law, but that such an action must be brought by the United States under the direction of the Attorney General. The syllabus in the case of Minnesota vs. Northern Securities Company, 194 U. S., 48, is as follows : “The intention of the Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, was to limit direct proceedings in Equity to prevent and restrain such violations of the Anti-Trust Act as cause injury to the general public, or to all alike, merely from the suppression of competition in trade and commerce among the several States and with foreign nations to those instituted in the name of the United States under Section 4 of the Act by District Attorneys of the United States, acting under the direction of the Attorney General, thus securing the enforcement of the act, so far as such direct proceedings in Equity are concerned acording to some uniform plan operative throughout the entire country. 55 In view of the foregoing statement of facts and the law applicable to them, the Petitioner respectfully asks that the Attor- ney General of the United States be directed by you to institute the proper proceedings in the United States Courts against the South- ern Railway Company. 27 ATLANTIC COAST LINE COMPANY. This Company was organized on May 29, 1889, under the laws of Connecticut. It owns or controls a connected system of railroads extending from Richmond, Va., and Norfolk, Va., to Atlanta, Ga., Montgomery, Ala., Ponta Gorda, Fla. ; reaching Wilmington, N. C., Charleston, Port Royal and Columbia, S. C.; Augusta, Macon, Brunswick and Savannah, Ga. ; Jacksonville, Port Tampa and Fort Myers, Fla., and numerous other points in the South Atlantic States. The following statement shows the mileage of the Atlantic Coast Line System on January 1, 1904: MILES. Atlantic Coast Line Company (exclusive of C. & W. C. trackage) 4,148.57 C. & W. C. Railway 339.58 Northwestern Railroad of South Carolina (ex- clusive of A. C. L. R. R. trackage) 69.30 Total length of railroads controlled by A. C. L. Company, January 1, 1904 4,557.45 The Atlantic Coast Railroad Company, owned and controlled by the Atlantic Coast Line Company, is a consolidation of railroads, made effective May 1, 1900, of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company of Virginia ; the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company of South Carolina; the Norfolk and Carolina Railroad Company, the Wilmington & Weldon Railroad Company, and the Southeastern Railroad Company of North Carolina. The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company of South Carolina was a combination organized July 16, 1898, of the Wilmington, Columbia & Augusta; the Northeastern; the Florence; the Cheraw & Darlington, and the Manchester & Augusta Railroad Companies. The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company of Virginia was a combination effected on November 1, 1898, of the Petersburg and the Richmond & Petersburg Railroad Companies. The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, as above described on May 13, 1902, was combined with the Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Company (Plant System), which latter Company was itself a combination of railroads. On November 1, 1902, the control of the Louisville & Nash- ville Railroad Company was acquired by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company through the purchase of $30,600,000 of stock, being a majority of the capital stock of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. The latter Company owns and controls 6,133.15 miles of railroads, itself being a combination of a large number of railroads. 28 The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company are joint lessees of the Georgia Rail- Toad Company, and joint owners of the Atlanta Belt Line Com- pany. The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company owns one-sixth interest in the Richmond- Washington Company, and one-third interest in the Chesapeake Steamship Company. The Richmond- Washington Company is a corporation formed for the purpose of operating the railroad connecting the south end of the Long Bridge, at Washington, D. C., with Richmond, Va. The Chesapeake Steam- ship Company operates steamship lines between Baltimore and Norfolk and between Baltimore and York River in Virginia. A more detailed account of the railroads owned and controlled by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Compaq will appear from the following statement up to June 30, 1903, and accompanying maps taken from Poor’s Manual of Railroads, 1904 : ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY. Mileage operated June 30, 1903. Lines Owned. MILES. In Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Alabama . . . 3,999.26 Leased IAnes. MILES. South Carolina Pacific Railway 10.50 Central Railroad of South Carolina 40.20 Wilmington Street Railway 1.25 Winston & Bone Valley Railroad 27.79 79.74 Trackage Rights. Seaboard Air Line Railway 22.01 Charleston & Western Carolina Railway. . . 28.80 Wilmington Railway Bridge 2.46 Savannah Union Station Company 3.71 Jacksonville Terminal Companv 1.89 Belt Line Railroad ' 1.00 59.87 Total length of lines operated June 30, 1903. . . 4,138.87 Lined Operated. Statement showing in detail the mileage operated by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, June 30, 1903 : MILES. Richmond. Va. to Port Tampa, Fla 898.04 Pinner’s Point (Norfolk), Va., to Rocky Mount, N. C., and branches 124.08 29 Clapton to James River, Va 4.55 Acree to Dunlop, Ya 6.51 Western Branch, Petersburg, Ya 3.15 Pender to Kingston, N. C 85.82 Tarboro Junction to Plymouth, N. C 53.89 Parmelee Junction to Washington, K. C 25.39 Rocky Mount, to Spring Hope, N. C 19.20 Contentnea to Wilmington, K. C 105.00 Goldsboro Junction to Smithfield, K. C 21.50 Warsaw to Clinton, N. C 13.43 Wilmington to Newbern, N. C., and Branches. . 90.32 Yadkin Junction (Wilmington) to Sanford, K. C. 116.40 Parktcn, N. C., to South Carolina State Line. . . 35.02 Wilmington to Wilmington Railway Bridge Company (Hilton) 1.83 Wilmington Railway Bridge Company (Na- vassa) to Pee Dee, S. C 92.89 Elrod, K.C., to Conway, S. C 71.38 Florence, S. C.. to Wadesboro, N. C., and branch to Harts ville, S. C 74.52 Sumter, S. C., to Gibson, K. C 73.77 Florence to Columbia, S. C 81.70 Lattato Clio, S. C 19.78 Sumter to Robbins, S. C 98.50 Elliott to Lucknow, S. C 16.48 Creston to Pregnalls, S. C 40.81 Eutawville to Ferguson. S. C 6.16 Ashley River Railroad Branch 4.50 John’s Island to Ashley River, S. C 8.70 .Ravenel to Yonges Island, S. C., and Branches. . 21.02 Green Pond tc Ehrhardt, S. C 37.67 Jesup, Ga., to Montgomery, Ala 353.21 Waycross to Folkston, Ga 34.04 Albany, Ga., to Monticello, Fla 82.47 Climax, Ga., to Chattahoochee, Fla 30.83 Abbeville Junction to Abbeville, Ala 26.90 Elba Junction to Elba, Ala 37.22 Sprague Junction to Luverne, Ala 32.92 Brunswick to Albany Junction, Ga 168.78 Dupont Junction, Ga., to Punta Gorda, Fla 301.13 Lake City Junction to Lake City, Fla 18.9° High Springs to Gainesville, Fla 23.60 Juliette to Ocala, Fla 20.36 Gulf Junction to Homosassa, Fla 21.88 Bartow to Bartow Junction, Fla 16.20 DeLand Junction to DeLand, Fla 4.00 Sanford to Lake Eustis, Fla 28.62 Sanford to Lake Charm, Fla 17.60. Astor to Leesburg, Fla., and Fort Mason to Lane Park, Fla 47.42 Kissimmee to Apopka, Fla 34.00 30 Thonotosassa Junction to Thonotosassa, Fla. . .. 13.33 Palatka to Gainesville and to Brookville, Fla., and Branches 170.46 Okahumpa to Yalaka, Fla 6.56 Enterprise to Enterprise Junction, Ga 3.90 Sanford to St. Petersburg, Fla 153.33 Kissimmee to Narcoossee, Fla 14.40 Lines to Factories, Mills, Etc 85.23 Leased Lines (79.74 miles). Central Eailroad of South Carolina — Lanes to Sumter, S. C 40.20 South Carolina Pacific Railway — N. C. Lines to Bennettsville, S. C 10.50 Wilmington Street Railway — • In Wilmington, N. C 1.25 Winston & Bone Valiev Railroad — Winston to Tiger Bay, Fla.., and Branches 27.79 Trackage Rights (59.87 miles). Seaboard Air Line Railway — Garvsburg to Weldon, N. C 12.39 Archer to Morriston, Fla 19.62 Wilmington Railway Bridge — Hilton to Navassa, N. C 2.46 Charleston & Western Carolina Railway — Robbins, S. C., to Augusta, Ga 28.80 Savannah Union Station Company — Telfair Junction to Union Station, and thence to a point near Union Junction. 3.71 Jacksonville Terminal Company — Junction with line to Savannah to depot, thence to junction with line to Port Tampa, Fla. . 1.89 Belt Line Railway — In Montgomery, Ala 1.00 Total mileage operated 4,138.87 LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY. Mileage operated, June 30. 1903. — (a.) Lines owned (total 3,385.28 miles). MILES. Main Stem — Louisville, Ivy., to Nashville, Tenn 185.92 Bardstown and Springfield Branch — Bardstown Junction to Springfield, Ivy 37.44 Knoxville Branch — Lebanon Junction, Kv., to Jellico, Tenn 171.17 Wilton Branch — Woodbine to Wilton. Ivv 3.97 Jellico. Birdseye & Northern Railroad — Halsey, Kv., to Jellico, Tenn 7.40 3i Cumberland Valley Branch — Corbin, Ivy., to Norton, Va 117,44 Cumberland Biver & Tennessee Bailroad — Wasiota to Chenoa, Ky 12.62 Middlesborough Bailroad — Micldlesborough, Ky., to Coal Mjines, Tenn. . . . 16.22 Louisville, Cincinnati & Lexington Bailway — Louisville to Newport, Ky 109.70 Louisville Bailway Transfer — East Louisville to South Louisville, Ky 4.13 Lexington Branch — La Grange to Lexington, Ky 67.00 Shelby Cut-Off — Shelbyville to Christianburg, Ky 8.51 Louisville, Harrod’s Creek & Westport Bailroad — Louisville to Prospect, Ky 11.16 Shelby Bailroad : Anchorage to Shelbyville, Ky 19.10 Shelbvville, Bloomfield & Ohio Bailroad — Shelbyville to Bloomfield, Ky 26.72 Kentucky Central Bailway — Covington to Livingston, Ky 147.27 Maysville & Lexington Bailroad — North Division: Maysville to Paris, Ky 49.48 South Division: Paris Junction to Lexington, Kentucky . . . 17.86 Bichmond Branch— Bichmoncl to Bowland 33.04 Owensboro & Nashville Bailroad — Owensboro to Adairville, Ky 83.46 Mud Biver Branch— Penrod to Mud Biver Mines, Ky 4.64 Brought forward 1,134.25 Memphis Line — Memphis Junction to Memphis, Tenn 261.59 Paducah and Memphis Division: Memphis, Tenn., to Paducah, Ky 254.20 Clarksville & Princeton Branch- — Clarksville, Tenn., to Princeton, Ky 52.70 Clarksville Mineral Branch — Hematite to Pond. Ky 31.35 Van Leer to Cumberland Furnace, Tenn 6.00 Southeast & St. Louis Bailway — East St. Louis, 111., to Evansville, Ind 162.00 Shawneetown Branch : Shawnee Junction to Shawneetown, 111 40.70 O’Fallon Branch: O’Fallon Junction to O’Fal- lon, 111 6.04 Henderson Bridge and Connecting Track 10.06 Evansville, Henderson & Nashville Bailroad — Ensfield Junction to Henderson, Ky 134.76 32 Madisonville Branch — Mndisonville to Providence, Ky Nashville, Florence & Sheffield Railway — Columbia to Sheffield, Ala West Point Branch — Iron City to Pinkney, Term Napier Branch — Summertown to Napier, Tenn Long Branch — T. & A. Junction to Long Branch Sheffield & Tuscumbia Railroad — Sheffield to Tuscumbia, Ala New and Old Decatur Belt & Terminal Railroad. Stouts Mountain Railroad — S. M. Junction to Stouts Mountain, Ala Birmingham Mineral Railroad — Magella to Brickyard Y, 8.02 m. ; Alice to Alice Mines, 0.89 m. ; Alice to Fossil Mines, 0.63 m. ; Graces to Bessemer, 11.57 m. ; Sloss to Miuscoda, 1.2 m. ; Blue Creek Junction to Blocton Junction, 27.08 m. ; Yolande to Brookwood, 9.01 m. ; Chamblee to Goethite, 3.65 m. ; Bessemer to Oneonta, 49.3 m. ; Village Springs to Cromptons, 3.39 m.; Gurley to Worthington’s Quarries, 1.18 m. ; Palmers to Bradford, 4.3 m. ; Oneonta to Champion, 3.5 m.; Boyles to Trussville, 17.14 m. ; Gate City to Graces, 10.28 m. ; Helena to Gurnee Junction, 10.04 m. ; Readers to Leogusta, 1.68 m. ; Oneonta and Attalla Junction to Altoona, 9.56 m.; North Alabama Junction to Searles, 3.4 m. ; Val- ley Creek to Virginia, Ala., 2.05 m. ; Gurley Junction to Lehigh, Ala., 7.35 m. — Total. . Alabama Mineral Railroad — Attalla to Calera, Ala Columbiana Branch : Shelby to Columbiana, Ala Lumberton Branch : Gilmore Switch to Lum- berton, Ala Skews Branch : O’Connor Junction to Skews, Ala Other Branches Montgomery & Prattville Railroad — Prattville Junction to Prattville, Ala Mobile & Montgomery Railroad — Montgomery to Mobile, A la Alabama Florida Railroad — Georgiana, Ala., to Graceville, Fla Southern Alabama Railroad — Selma to Escambia Junction, Ala., and Branch. 16.10 82.13 11.78 10.92 7.32 2.63 3.62 5.95 185.22 119.07 5.84 4.77 3.60 4.86 10.35 178.49 100.38 111.09 33 Camden Branch: Nadawah to Camden, Ala. . . 16.61 Birmingham, Selma & New Orleans Railway — Selma to Myrtlewood, Ala 60.25 Pensacola Railroad — Flomation, Ala., to Pensacola, Fla 44.64 Pensacola & Atlantic Railroad — Pensacola to River Junction, Fla 160.47 New Orleans & Mbbile Railroad — Mobile to New Orleans, La 140.36 Ponchartrain Railroad — Ponchartrain Junction to Milneburg, La 5.18 (b.) Leased or Operated Under Agreements (Total 328.60 M.) MILES. Nashville & Decatur Railroad — Nashville, Tenn., to Decatur, Ala 119.24 South & North Alabama Railroad — New Decatur to Montgomery, Ala 182.67 Wetumpka Branch : Elmore to Wetumpka, Ala. 6.30 Western Railway of Alabama — In Selma, Ala 0.70 Southern Railway — Gurnee Junction to Blocton, Ala., 14.41 m.; Seymour to Piper, Ala., 2.23 m. ; Ardela to Hansell, Ala., 3.05 m. — Total 19.69 (c.) Lines Operated , Earnings Not Included in L. & N. Accounts . (Total 52.32 M.) MILES. Cumberland & Ohio Railroad (South Division) — Cumberland & Ohio Junction to Greensburg, Ivy. 30.90 Glasgow Railroad — Glasgow Junction to Glasgow, Ky 10.50 Elkton & Guthrie Railroad — Elkton Junction to Elkton, Ky 10.92 Total length of Louisville & Nashville Sys- tem June 30, 1903 3,766.20 Deduct Lines owned but not operated ( See Sec- tion 4) — Paducah & Memphis Division (leased to N. C. & St. L. Railway) 254.20 Clarksville & Princeton Branch : Gracey Length of lines operated by L. & N. Rail- road, June 30, 1903 .' 3,491.30 Deduct — Lines operated, but results not included in income account 52.32 34 Length of lines whose earnings are included in income account 3,438.98 Average length operated during year ending, June 30, 1903 3,438.93 2s track owned, 71.41 m. ; sidings owned, 763.37 m. ; guage 4 feet 8} inches. Rail (steel, 4,108.70 miles), 50 to 80 lbs. Railroads in which the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Com- pany is interested, but which were operated by their own. organiza- tions, June, 30, 1903 : Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway (majority of stock owned) 941.66 Birmingham Southern Railroad (one-half of stock owned) 26.37 Central Transfer Railway & Storage Company. (one-half of stock owned) 0.67 Georgia Railroad System (interest as joint lessee) 614.00 Atlanta, Knoxville & Northern Railway (major- ity of stock owned) 228.14 Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway (ma- jority of capital stock owned jointly with Southern Railway Company) 556.11 Total operated separately, June 30, 1903 . . . 2,366.95 . Total operated by Louisville & Nashville Rail- road Company, June 30, 1903 3,491.30 Owned by Louisville & Nashville Railroad Corn- pan}", but operated by other companies. . . . 274.90 Grand total in which Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company was interested June 30, 1903 ' 6,133.15 Before acquiring the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company had the power to fix rates from Baltimore, Md. ; Richmond, Va. ; Norfolk, Ya. ; Charleston, S. C. ; Savannah, Ga., and Jacksonville, Fla., to Atlanta, Ga., but it could not exercise any control over the rates which the Louisville and Nashville Railroad could make from Ohio and Mississippi River crossings and Gulf ports to Atlanta, Ga. But when the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company purchased control of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, it acquired the power of the latter Company to make the rates from the Ohio and Mis- sissippi River crossings and Gulf ports to Atlanta, and thus it acquired the power to make rates from Cincinnati, O.; Louisville, Kv. ; Evansville, Inch, St. Louis, Mo.; Memphis, Tenn. ; New Or- 35 leans, La., and Mobile, Ala., to Atlanta, Ga. The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company to-day, therefore, has the power to make rates to Atlanta, Ga., not only from Baltimore, Md. ; Richmond, Ya. : Norfolk, Ya. ; Charleston, S. C.; Savannah, Ga., and Jack- sonville, Fla., but also from Cincinnati, 0. ; Louisville, Ky. ; Evans- ville, Ind.; St. Louis, Mo.; Memphis, Tenn., New Orleans, La., and Mobile, Ala., to Atlanta, Ga. In acquiring control of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company acquired something more than simply continuing lines of railroads from Montgomery, Ala., to Mobile, Ala. ; New Orleans, La. ; M|emphis, Tenn. ; St. Louis, Mo. ; Evansville, Ind. ; Louisville, Ky., and Cin- cinnati, 0. It also acquired the power to make rates from the entire section of country traversed by the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, the products of which section compete in a common territory of destination with the products of the section of country traversed by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company proper. The power vested in a combination, in the form of trust or otherwise, to fix the freight rates on the products of two different sections of country competing with each other in a common terri- tor}’ of destination, is a power which can and necessarily does directly restrain trade and commerce as between said competing sections of country and said common territory of destination, just as effectually as could the Northern Securities Company restrain trade and commerce, within the meaning of the Sherman Anti- Trust Act, by having the power to fix freight rates on the products of a section of country traversed by two parallel and competing lines of railroad, controlled by it. The foregoing statement relating to the Atlantic Coast Line Company makes clear a state of facts similar to that which exists with respect to the Southern Railway Company, viz. : 1. That the Atlantic Coast Line Company, by the ownership of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and otherwise, has come into absolute control of a part of what is known as the South- ern territory; and by the control of the Louisville & Nashville Rail- road Company and the lines of railroads owned by it, controls two great arms of railroads reaching into said territory — one coming from the East, and the other from the North and West. 2. That this control has been obtained by the purchase by the Atlantic Coast Line Company of the controlling stock of other Tailroads, or by the ownership of their securities, or by lease. 36 3. That the roads thus brought into combination with the Atlantic Coast Line Company are in certain cases parallel roads, in other cases competing roads, continuous roads or intersecting roads. 4. That by this combination the Atlantic Coast Line Com- %v pany has the power, and the inevitable tendency of the combination is not only to restrain trade and commerce in the section of terri- tory controlled by it, but to unreasonably restrain such trade and commerce. 5. That a combination owning or controlling railroads leading from all of the principal gateways and from all directions of the compass into a common territory of destination has the power to as effectually restrain trade and commerce among the several states as does a combination which consists of two parallel and competing roads; and It will further appear from the evidence set forth in another ♦ part of this petition That such combination not only has the power, but is now exercising it, to restrain and restrict trade and commerce between the Northern and Western States and the Southern States by mak- ing and charging rates from the Ohio and Mississippi Eiver gate- ways to the Southeast that are unreasonably high as compared with the rates from the East to the Southeast. From the foregoing statements in regard to the Southern Rail- way Company and the Atlantic Coast Line Company, it appears that each corporation has created a combination of railroads, with an eastern arm and a western arm reaching into common Southern territory, and controlling the freight rates along said lines into said territory. An examination of the situation, if conducted with the thor- * oughness which the powers granted to the United States Govern- ment would enable it to do, would also show that these two systems of railroads, sometimes by agreements between themselves, and at > other times by agreements between themselves and other railroads, through the agencies of Freight Associations and in other ways, become the dominant factor in fixing the freight rates from the East and West into the Southern territory. As illustrating the method by which these combinations are established and maintained, we direct attention to the following Freight Association agreements, and a meeting held in New York December 1st and 2nd, 1904, at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. 37 FREIGHT ASSOCIATIONS. On the first, day of May, 1897, certain railroad corporations which at that time were and ever since have been common carriers of freight and continuously engaged in transporting freight in the commerce which is continuously carried on among the several states of the United States, constituted themselves into and formed the Southeastern Mississippi Valley Association. These railroad cor- porations were Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, Ala- bama & Vicksburg Railway Company, Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company, Illinois Central Railroad Com- pany, Illinois Central Railroad Company (Louisville Division), Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham Railroad Company, Louis- ville & Nashville Railroad Company, Mbmphis & Charleston Rail- road Company, Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company, Nashville, Chat- tanooga & St. Louis Railway Company, New Orleans & North- eastern Railroad Company, Southern Railway Company and Yazoo and Mississippi Valley Railroad Company. On the first day of May, 1903, certain railroad corporations and steamship companies, which at that time were and ever since have been common carriers of freight and continuously engaged in transporting freight in the commerce which is continuously carried on among the several states of the United States, constituted them- selves into and formed the Southeastern Freight Association. These carriers were the Southern Railway Company, Central of Georgia Railway Company, The West Point Route, Western & Atlantic R. R., The Seaboard Air Line, Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Company, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Charleston and Western Carolina Railway Company, Ocean Steamship Company of Savannah, Clyde S. S. Company, New York & Texas S. S. Com- pany, Old Dominion Steamship Company, The Chesapeake Steam- ship Compaq, Baltimore Steam Packet Company, Merchants and Miners Transportation Company, Norfolk & Western Railway, Georgia Railroad, Macon & Birmingham Railway Company, Geor- gia, Florida & Alabama Railway Company, The Wrightsville and Tennille R. R. Company, Florida East Coast Railway Company, Jacksonville & Southwestern Railroad, Colo. Newberry & Laurens Railroad Company, Virginia & Southwestern Railway Company, and Atlanta, Knoxville & Northwestern Railway Company. Each of the said railroad corporations was prior to the said dates the owner and in the control of and operating and using distinct and separate lines of railroad fitted up for carrying on business as carriers in the freight traffic between and among the 38 states and territories of the United States, having through lines for the said freight traffic in approximately all that region and country lying between the Potomac and Ohio Rivers on the north, the Atlantic Ocean on the east, the Gulf of Mexico on the south, and the Mississippi River on the west. On the said dates, these railroad corporations intending to counteract the effect of free competition on the prices of transpor- tation and to establish and maintain arbitrary rates and to prevent any one of the said railroad corporations from reducing such arbi- trary rates and intending to monopolize the commerce among the several states in the territory described, combined, conspired and confederated and unlawfully agreed together, and did then and there enter into contracts, combinations or agreements constituting the Articles of Agreement of the Southeastern Freight Association and the Southeastern Mississippi Valley Association. The territory of the Southeastern Mississippi Valley Associa- tion was then and there described to be and is approximately all that section of the United States lying south of the Ohio River and the Virginias west of the territory of the Southeastern Freight Association and east of the Mississippi River. The subject matter of the Southeastern Mississippi Valley Association was then and there described to be and is approximately all traffic for which two or more of the parties compete, having ori- gin and destination within the territory of the Association except coal, coke, export and import traffic. The territory of the South-Eastern Freight Association was then and there described to be and is approximately all that sec- tion of the United States lying south of the Potomac River, the Virginia- West Virginia State Line and a line through Middles- boro, Kentucky and Chattanooga, Tennessee; west of the Atlantic Ocean; east of a line drawn from Chattanooga, Tenn., to Selma, Ala.; north of a line drawn from Selma, Ala., to Jacksonville, Fla. The subject matter of the South-Eastern Freight Association was then and there described to be and is all traffic for which two or more of the parties compete, having origin or destination within the territory of the Association except coal, coke, cotton, export and import traffic. Your petitioner alleges that seventy-five per cent of the traffic subject to each association is traffic between the states. By means of the said associations and by means of agreements between them, the discriminations hereinbefore complained of, are established and maintained. The South-Eastern Freight Associa- tion governs and controls competitive traffic on all lines of railroad 39 running from points north of the Potomac Kiver to points within its territory. The said South-Eastern Mississippi Valley Associa- tion governs and controls competitive traffic on all railroads run- ning from points north of the Ohio Eiver to points within its terri- tory as described, and from the City of Cincinnati, Ohio, to the markets and sources of supply of your petitioner in the Southern States. Through and by means of the said associations and by agree- ments between them and through the membership of certain domi- nant carriers in both of them, to-wit : The Southern Railway and the Louisville & Nashville Atlantic Coast Line combination, the said carriers are enabled to and do establish and maintain the discriminations hereinbefore complained of. To the end that rates, rules and regulations be established and maintained these associations adopt rates, rules and regulations, which, when agreed to, are the governing rates for all the subscrib- ing companies. The agreements under which said subscribers operate have since their adoption been in force and lived up to and their direct immediate and necessary effect is to put a restraint on trade and commerce among the states. Certain officers of the subscribing companies are made by the said Articles of Agreement to constitute the boards and committees of these associations. These officers, meeting as such boards or commit- tees in accordance with the rules of the association, confer as to every contemplated change in rates, rules and regulations affecting traffic of the association. Such board or committee discuss the same and arrive at a mutual understanding. In accordance with the rules of the Association, resolutions or recommendations stating the sense of the committee concerning the matter conferred on are then adopted. Immediately thereafter, pursuant to such recommenda- tions and resolutions of these committees acting under the rules of the Association, rates, rules and regulating embodying such recom- mendations and resolutions are concurrently put into effect and promulgated by all the carriers members of the Association. Through and because of such conferences, mutual understand- ings and consequent uniformity of action the people within the territory of the Association including your petitioner, have been deprived of the benefits which might reasonably be expected to flow from competition in prices between the said carriers unim- paired and untrammeled by any agreement, joint understanding and concurrence of action and from competition, such as would 40 take place should each carrier, as it should under the law, act inde- pendently and alone. Compliance with the resolutions or recommendations of the Association is secured by threats and acts of reprisal against any delinquent member, to-wit: By invasion of its territory by mem- bers of the Association which are efficiently located for the same; by diverting traffic from the lines of the delinquent member and by other means. Since the formation of the said Associations, the subscribers have been acting in pursuance of the Articles of Agreement and the resolutions or recommendations of the association, and have put into effect and kept in force upon their several lines of railroad rules, regulations and rates fixed and established by the association, and have declined and refused to fix and establish rates based on the cost of construction and maintenance of their several lines of rail- road and such other elements as should be considered in establish- ing tariff rates on each particular road, and the people of the states subject to the association, and all persons engaged in trade or com- merce within and among the several states included within its jurisdiction, and your petitioner have been compelled to and are still compelled to pay the rates of freight and submit to the rules and regulations established and maintained by the associations, and have been deprived of the benefits that might be expected to flow from free competition between the several lines of transportation possessed by the members thereof, and are deprived of the equitable adjustment of rates that might reasonably be expected to follow free competition between the lines mentioned, and the trade, traffic and commerce in such regions and country have been and are restrained, hindered and retarded by the subscribing carriers by means of and through these associations. In order that it may be made to appear that the said associa- tions are formed for the purpose and that the effects stated above result from their formation and existence, it is necessary to exam- ine not only the printed articles of agreement as published by the association and filed with the Interstate Commerce Committee, but the acts of the association, the acts of the members thereof in accordance with and under the agreement, the construction put upon the agreement by its members and their admissions concern- ing .it. 4 1 THE SOUTH-EASTERN MISSISSIPPI VALLEY ASSOCIATION. The Articles of Agreement of the South-Eastern Mississippi Valley Association are as follows: For the purposes set forth in the following Articles, the Com- panies, parties hereto, agree to form a Freight Association to be known as the South-Eastern Mississippi Valley Association, to be governed by a Board consisting of a duly accredited officer of ■each Company. ARTICLE I. 1. The traffic to which these Articles relate shall be the fol- lowing, for which two or more of the parties hereto compete: (a) Freight traffic which passes from, to, or through Ohio River or Mississippi River points, Cincinnati to New Orleans in- clusive, when destined to or coming from Mississippi River points -south of Cairo to New Orleans inclusive; except that traffic between points west of points on the west bank of the Mississippi River and Mississippi River points south of Cairo to New Orleans inclu- sive shall not be included. (b) Freight traffic passing from, to, or through Ohio River and Mississippi River points, Cincinnati to New Orleans inclusive, when destined to or coming from points south of the Ohio River and Virginias, and east of the Mississippi River. (c) Freight traffic originating at and destined to junction or crossing points, both of which are located east of the Mississippi River and south of the Ohio River and the Virginias. It is understood that on traffic to and from the territory south and east of the line Jellico, Harriman Junction, Chattanooga, Birmingham, Selma, and Montgomery, to Pensacola, including junction points on the Alabama Mineral Division of the L. & N. R. R. (Attalla to Calera inclusive), this association shall co-operate with the South-Eastern Freight Associations. 2. The local traffic of any line, member of this association, or the local traffic between lines members of this association having the same management, shall not be within the purposes of this Association, and the following traffic is also excepted : ( a) Coke and bituminous coal. (b) Cotton. (c) Export and import traffic. 3. This association shall not interfere with the organization I I