Atlantic-Seaboard Merger Case Records, 1960-1969

Back to Finding Aids
Washington State University Libraries Manuscripts, Archives, and Special Collections Pullman, WA 99164-5610 USA (509) 335-6691 Inquiries

Cage 228
Atlantic-Seaboard Merger Case
Records, 1960-1969

The records of the Atlantic Coast Line and Seaboard Airline railroad merger case were donated to the Washington State University Library by Edwin H. Burgess in 1969. They were processed by Robert A. Catale in April of 1974.

Number of containers: 17
Linear feet of shelf space: 8.5
Approximate number of items: 500

HISTORY

Mr. Edwin Burgess, a lawyer with wide railroad experience, was chosen in 1960 to represent the interests of the Mercantile Safe Deposit and Trust Company of Baltimore in the proposed merger of the Atlantic and the Seaboard. Mercantile held fiduciary control over nearly 35 per cent of the Atlantic Coast Line and thus would gain a controlling interest in the newly merged company.

This new railroad would bring together the 5,573 miles of track of the Atlantic with the 4,146 miles of the Seaboard. Both roads were in strong financial condition when they appeared before the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) for permission to merge. This merger, they claimed, would save the new line nearly 38 million dollars over a five year period. In addition, the merger would hasten the lowering of rates, eliminate duplication of service in many areas, and generally improve rail service along the whole southeastern coast of the United States.

The historical importance of this merger was recognized at the time since mergers between financially strong competitors were generally conceived as favoring monopolistic trends. Michael Conant in his 1964 study Railroad Mergers and Abandonments commented:

"A significant aspect of this case was the petition of intervening railroads that as a condition of approval the Commission require the Seaboard and the Atlantic Coast Line to transfer specific sections of their lines to intervenors. . . . All these requests for conditions to the merger were based on the argument that the merged line would divert so much traffic from the intervenors that their solvency would be endangered. (p. 80)"

The ICC rejected all arguments opposed to the merger since to permit them to stand would have frustrated the overall objectives of the merger. Thus, in approving the merger the ICC held that it was of greater import to eliminate wasteful transport and increase efficiency than to allow a near monopolistic situation to arise in the area's rail service. However, two of the ICC examiners did reject the proposed merger on the grounds that it would not help preserve rail competition in the southeastern United States.

The decision of the ICC favoring merger was rendered on December 2, 1963. The merger, however, was not completed until several years of intervenor's court appeals were finally ended when the United States Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, sustained the merger on May 10, 1967.

DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORDS

The records of the Atlantic-Seaboard Merger Case are composed of published applications for merger, statements, reports, and exhibits of parties favoring or opposing the merger, over five thousand pages of arguments before the ICC, and the final report of the examiners. Briefs of intervenors, who between 1964 and 1967 had appealed the ICC report first to the U.S. District Court in Jacksonville, Florida, and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, are included in the records as well as the various court decisions.

The correspondence, though limited, reflects the intimate working relationship between Edwin H. Burgess, representing the Mercantile Safe Deposit and Trust Company, with the legal department of the Atlantic and the executives of the Seaboard.

CONTAINER LIST

Box Folder   Description Number
of Items
1 1-3 Applications of ACL & SAL railroads to the ICC for Approval of merger; supplemental application of Mercantile Safe Deposit and Trust Co.; applications of interested parties to intervene and other relief; ICC orders. 39
2-4 4-12 Statements, resolutions, and letters of parties supporting merger. 64
4 13-15 Maps, schedules, reports, and other exhibits in support of merger. 39
5 16-19 Statements, resolutions, letters, reports, and other exhibits in opposition to merger. 40
6 20 Replies of applicants to intervenors. 9
Oral Arguments before Interstate Commerce Commission
21    pp. 281-308; 311-368; 773-1070 4 v.
22    pp. 1071-1464 2 v.
23    pp. 1465-1750 3 v.
7 24    pp. 1751-2090 2 v.
25    pp. 2091-2381 2 v.
26    pp. 2382-2706 2 v.
27    pp. 2707-3016 2 v.
8 28    pp. 3017-3326 2 v.
29    pp. 3327-3484 1 v.
30    pp. 3485-3785 2 v.
31    pp. 3786-3954 1 v.
9 32    pp. 3955-4119 1 v.
33    pp. 4120-4348 1 v.
34    pp. 4349-4570 2 v.
35    pp. 4571-4878 2 v.
10 36    pp. 4879-5060 1 v.
37    pp. 5061-5262 1 v.
38    pp. 5263-5418 1 v.
39    pp. 5419-5729 2 v.
40 Corrections. 11
11 41 ICC Examiner's Report. 2
42-44 Exceptions of Intervenors to Examiner's Report. 23
12 45 Exceptions of Intervenors to Examiner's Report. 10
46 Applicants' replies to Exceptions. 6
Court Proceedings
47    Suit by Florida East Coast RR, et al. in U.S. District Court to enjoin and set aside ICC order approving merger. 19
48    Briefs of parties opposing merger. 3
13 49-50    Briefs of parties opposing merger. 11
51-52    Briefs of parties supporting merger. 8
14 53-54    Oral arguments before U.S. District Court in Jacksonville, Florida, and its decision (May 13, 1965) annulling ICC order approving merger 2
55    Appeal by supporters of merger to U.S. Supreme Court, briefs of parties, and Supreme Court's decision (Nov. 22, 1965) vacating district court's adverse decision and remanding case to district court for reconsideration. 15
15 56    Proceedings on remand in District Court for conference between interested parties and the courts, plus briefs in support of merger. 18
57-58    Briefs of opponents of merger, oral argument before District Court and its judgment approving the merger. (June 8, 1966). 16
16 59-60    Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court by opponents of merger; briefs of parties, and Supreme Court's opinion per curiam (May 10, 1967) sustaining the merger and Mercantile Safe Deposit & Trust Company's relation to the newly merged railroad. 20
61 Summary of Testimony prepared for E. H. Burgess as of May 2, 1961. 1
62 Abstract of Testimony before ICC as of July 5, 1961 prepared in the Law Department-of the Atlantic Coast Line RR Co. 1
17 63 Abstract of Testimony before ICC as of July 27, 1962 prepared in the Law Dept. of the ACL RR Co. 1
64 Preliminary Considerations of the ICC Examiner's Recommended Report and Order, Sept. 4, 1962, prepared in the Law Dept. of the ACL RR Co. 1
65-67 Correspondence of E. H. Burgess, 1960-69. 91
68 Clippings re: proposed merger. 10

Box	Folder	Description	Number of Items
1	1-3	Applications of ACL & SAL railroads to the ICC for Approval of merger; supplemental application of Mercantile Safe Deposit and Trust Co.; applications of interested parties to intervene and other relief; ICC orders.	39
2-4	4-12	Statements, resolutions, and letters of parties supporting merger.	64
4	13-15	Maps, schedules, reports, and other exhibits in support of merger.	39
5	16-19	Statements, resolutions, letters, reports, and other exhibits in opposition to merger.	40
6	20	Replies of applicants to intervenors.	9
		Oral Arguments before Interstate Commerce Commission
	21	pp. 281-308; 311-368; 773-1070	4 v.
	22	pp. 1071-1464	2 v.
	23	pp. 1465-1750	3 v.
7	24	pp. 1751-2090	2 v.
	25	pp. 2091-2381	2 v.
	26	pp. 2382-2706	2 v.
	27	pp. 2707-3016	2 v.
8	28	pp. 3017-3326	2 v.
	29	pp. 3327-3484	1 v.
	30	pp. 3485-3785	2 v.
	31	pp. 3786-3954	1 v.
9	32	pp. 3955-4119	1 v.
	33	pp. 4120-4348	1 v.
	34	pp. 4349-4570	2 v.
	35	pp. 4571-4878	2 v.
10	36	pp. 4879-5060	1 v.
	37	pp. 5061-5262	1 v.
	38	pp. 5263-5418	1 v.
	39	pp. 5419-5729	2 v.
	40	Corrections.	11
11	41	ICC Examiner's Report.	2
	42-44	Exceptions of Intervenors to Examiner's Report.	23
12	45	Exceptions of Intervenors to Examiner's Report.	10
	46	Applicants' replies to Exceptions.	6
		Court Proceedings
	47	Suit by Florida East Coast RR, et al. in U.S. District Court to enjoin and set aside ICC order approving merger.	19
	48	Briefs of parties opposing merger.	3
13	49-50	Briefs of parties opposing merger.	11
	51-52	Briefs of parties supporting merger.	8
14	53-54	Oral arguments before U.S. District Court in Jacksonville, Florida, and its decision (May 13, 1965) annulling ICC order approving merger	2
	55	Appeal by supporters of merger to U.S. Supreme Court, briefs of parties, and Supreme Court's decision (Nov. 22, 1965) vacating district court's adverse decision and remanding case to district court for reconsideration.	15
15	56	Proceedings on remand in District Court for conference between interested parties and the courts, plus briefs in support of merger.	18
	57-58	Briefs of opponents of merger, oral argument before District Court and its judgment approving the merger. (June 8, 1966).	16
16	59-60	Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court by opponents of merger; briefs of parties, and Supreme Court's opinion per curiam (May 10, 1967) sustaining the merger and Mercantile Safe Deposit & Trust Company's relation to the newly merged railroad.	20
	61	Summary of Testimony prepared for E. H. Burgess as of May 2, 1961.	1
	62	Abstract of Testimony before ICC as of July 5, 1961 prepared in the Law Department-of the Atlantic Coast Line RR Co.	1
17	63	Abstract of Testimony before ICC as of July 27, 1962 prepared in the Law Dept. of the ACL RR Co.	1
	64	Preliminary Considerations of the ICC Examiner's Recommended Report and Order, Sept. 4, 1962, prepared in the Law Dept. of the ACL RR Co.	1
	65-67	Correspondence of E. H. Burgess, 1960-69.	91
	68	Clippings re: proposed merger.	10