A COLORADO RAILROAD POOL 141 
receive the same from, any other line of railroad in the territory named than that of 
the party of the third part, as far as the said parties of the second part can legally 
control the same; and than any agreement or understanding of the parties of the 
first and second parts with each other, or of both or either or any of them, with any 
competing railroad for division of the business or territory or earnings that might 
divert business which would otherwise, under this agreement, pass over the lines 
of the party of the third part, shall provide for securing to the party of the third 
part, a proportionate benefit on the mileage basis stated in article five, for not less 
than one half of the southern and western business, and one fourth of the Denver 
business, as provided in article four of this agreement: provided that this shall not 
prevent the party of the second part from making an agreement or understanding 
with the Atlantic and Pacific Ry. Co. without incurring any liability to the party of the 
first or third parts." 
Concerning this remarkable contract Judge Hallett says, “It is 
enough to say that it is a conspiracy to grasp commerce and suppress 
the building of railroads in two great states.” He points out that such 
contracts had previously been declared illegal. By this contract the 
Rio Grande also agreed “not to do any through business to and from 
Trinidad, or to and from New Mexico via Trinidad or El Moro.” Judge 
Hallett further says this was renouncing its duty to the state by declining 
part of the business at Trinidad. One of the worst features of the con- 
tract according to the decision was the provision by which the parties 
agreed not to connect with or take business from or give business to 
any railroad which may be constructed in Colorado or New Mexico 
after its date (March 22, 1880). By this agreement a monopoly was 
sought to be perpetuated. Judge Hallett therefore decided that this 
agreement was void as a contravention of the provisions of the state 
constitution prohibiting discriminations in charges and facilities by 
railroads. Judge Hallett’s decision prescribed rules for the dealings 
of the two railroads compelling the Santa Fe to give the same facilities 
to the Denver and New Orleans as to the Denver and Rio Grande except 
as to the issue of through bills of lading, through checks for baggage, 
through tickets, and probably the compulsory interchange of cars. 
Both companies at once appealed from this decision, the Santa Fe because 
« 15 Federal, 653, 654. 2 Ibid. 
3 3 Roberts (N. Y.), 411; 5 Denio, 434; 4 Denio, 340. 
415 Federal, 653. Constitution of Colorado, Art. XV, secs. 4, 5 and 6. 
