The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-06-22

officers. The distinction was made | that in the contempt proceedings it
 would only be necessary to produce violated. while in a criminal prosecu-
 ton detailed proof of specific ship
 ments would have to be shown.
 torney general % Sisapprovse asaa @ of i' conssmpt & seI The letter }oiioWs: sisesn 's Sps'A' 'O
 utmost care Sovs SoSr iepter of Apri II. It has been submitted to the Pres ident and considered by him. think
 r,;,,iE ;19iEnt & to state to you that In trans, trans
 "1 concur in much said in this let- ter, l have not. however, as yet been proceeding in dividually against the officers of the railroad company for contempt of the Injunction without individual proceeded against that he had some culpable connection with the contempt of court
 His own Responsibility.
 Tn passing upon your recommenha- the great weight which is added to al sps standing. @ Nor s'in have I forgotten that you were Invited to exercise the broad. est discretion as to persons as well subject committed to you by this de- pertinent. Nevertheless, cannot es- cape my responsibility by suggesting | If proceedings are taken against the IcorporatioH or inviduals they must be taken In my name and, what IS iniin- thority that belongs to the office, which, for the time being. I hold. am therefore, face to face with my own personal and official responsibility and must discharge 1t under the exist ling circumstances that one of the per- sons affected by my decision Is a c9i- duty. It is net easy to determine with accuracy what effect such circum- stance has upon the exercise of Judg-
 ssayorea csS Sny ssy ssy that should eye ln no effect one way or the other.
 "The advice which you give is that
 attachment for the. contempt injunc-
 ti3n against the railway company and it's managing officers. There Is no diff
 ference between us as tc proeeedings E transactions set forth in the report to the interstate commerce commission
 in regard to the departure from the peka and Santa ke Railway system In favor of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company are within the terms Of n- mission shows with sufficient clearness that that injunction has been violated
 and the railroad company has been
 "But you go further and recommend
 proceeding against the managing cffi- cers of that company, including pre-
 sumaoiy the president: ih the ,ren yice pes Iment, the general freight and traffic
 manager and other officers whose du-
 ties relate to the transportation of
 Eve arc Clearly of the opinion that the report of the commission, with
 the verified copy of the testimony be- cient basis for an attachment in con
 tempt against the corporation and its managing officers
 transcript of the testimony taken by the commission. do not find any tes-
 timony relating to. the conduct of any except minor officials and Mir. Riddle, who may claim to have obtained im- munity by testifying fully before the Icommission. For instance. to be spe- eic; there is not syltia6sie t6a nrssdsst of tes If the road, MT. Morton, then one of
 it's vice presidents, had any connec- Ition whatever with the departure from Colorado Fuel and Iron Company or
 transportation was furnished te the that prescribed by the open and pub lished rate. Neither of these officials
 was in the. remotest way referred to Penalty Unwarranted.
 s was ssme9t n9t f Ss fsets tSesa
 oniciais were subject to penalty for
 contempt of court. Nor have l un-
 dersteod that 1t has been your opinion
 individuaI would be liable to punish-
 ment for. contempt. Your view. as l
 have understo9d ,a It. IS that the tSro',Hb e1r1 | their officers and agents. There is a presumption that those who .L,e are affairs are responsible for the con duct of a corporation which, violates an Injunction; that presumption war. asniS against aR it's ocers and % agents wRe | the corporation has been guilty of lcontempt and that upon investigation taken which will show whether or not the officers accused have themselves been guilty of any conduct which aid- stand. however, that without such. evil dence you would be of the opinion | bie to the penalty for contemtp. After great consideration l am of the opinion that some evidence ought | to precede the accusation, and that an accusation so great in It's character ought not to be made unless there ap- of Pffore # it esn" fHS sXSepSs Ss n saPP ho aee oDS RSwsT esn tG aueafion f W The the bs D9wsS TPss Cr %h its H scrSp | ious exercise. In this case, upon the facts which I have stated, nave reached the conclusion that l ought not tachment for contempt against the officers of the railway company.
 T have felt that 1t was due to you that you should receive an exact state ment of the views which l entertain and the reasons which have controlled
 sI have submitted the foregoing to the President and he authorizes me to say that he approves the conclusion which I have reached and directs thai proceedings for contempt injunction be begun against the railroad company only. Very respp.ssetfuIIy ,,oo0v Attorney General" Hon. Judson Harmon and Frederick N. Judson. Esq, Cincinnati, O. The letter in reply to thls contalns
 the resignation of Mesers. Harmon and June 5. It follows:
 The Resignation.
 "We have received and carefully con sidered your letter of i9th ut, and re- commendation of February 2S last which we repeated with further req. sons In our letter of April II. we appreciate the great weight to be giv- erl your conclusion. but we are deeply impressed with the gravity of the mat ter and it's importance as precedent;
 Tt is true that the report of the ln- terstate Commerce Commission merely law had been violated, without attempt ing to fix responsibility on any partic- ular officers of the railroad company The reason for this was that the con- fact of such violation and so stated
 (See testimony, 61341.)
 The violation by a corporation of an injunction directed against it and its rfHa