[594] United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 226 U. S. 61, 470 (1912, 1913).
[595] Preferential subscription rights were given to Union Pacific and Oregon Short Line Railroad Company stockholders, on condition that these last-named individuals divest themselves of their ownership of Union Pacific and Oregon Short Line shares before actually receiving their Southern Pacific certificates. See Daggett, “Later Developments in the Union Pacific Merger Case,” sup. cit.
[596] This was the second suit of the same nature. In July, 1894, Richard Olney, United States Attorney-General, filed a bill in the United States District Court at Los Angeles to dissolve the Southern Pacific combination. In 1894, as in 1915, it was charged that the consolidation of the Southern Pacific and the Central Pacific companies was illegal under the Sherman law. The Olney suit was later withdrawn.
[597] United States of America v. Southern Pacific Company. The record and briefs in the case of the United States v. the Southern Pacific are as extensive as those submitted in the Union Pacific merger case. No attempt will be made to give detailed references to accompany the summary account presented in the remainder of this chapter.
[598] United States v. Southern Pacific Company, 239 Fed. 998 (1917).
[599] Including the output of the Associated Oil Company.
[600] Third Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor of California, 1917-18.
[601] For a full discussion of this and kindred subjects, see Lindley on Mines, ed. 3.
[602] Burke v. Southern Pacific, 234 U. S. 669 (1914).
[603] Ibid., pp. 691-92. See also Roberts v. Southern Pacific Company, 186 Fed. 934 (1911).