The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-06-23

submitted by the fuel company, and
consequently no immunity could be
claimed for it. Certain papers haG
been submitted by the railroad com
pany, but only such as are by law
made public, consequently no immun-
ity claim would stand thereby. Messrs.
Harmon and Judson recommended
that the railroad company and all of /
its principal officers and agents, per-
haps including some subordinate Off
GERS and agents, be arraigned for CON
tempt of court in making and carrying |
out the agreement referred to.
A SECOND RECOMMENDATION |
| Some further correspondence ensued, |
| ending in a second recommendation by |
| MeSSrS. Harmon and JudsOn of con- |
| tempt proceedings on the ground that |
only by judicial process could formal
proof be obtained to punish for con-
| tempt Of court and also criminally. At
torney General ,Loody replied:
| Before proceeding for contempt, or
| criminal proceedings, against either
| the railroad of the fuel company, or
their officers or agents, are begun, |
desire that all the material facts
should he before the department aid
that the department should have the
benefit Of your advice upon them
The next letter in the series was ad-
dressed to the attorney general by
Messrs Harmon and Judson. 1t re-
viewed the recommendation Of Marcn
il, that further testimony be taken,
and added that this testimony was de-
| sirable mot so much with a view OF
procuring proof of the violation OF the
Injunction as a basis for an attach
| hn H.
road company and its officers, as witt
the view of procuring detailed proof
OF unlawful shipments so as to have a
proper basis of proceeding under the
criminal provisions of the Elkins act
against the Colorado Fuel and Iron
Company and it's officers.
The letter then argued that testi-
mony taken before a master would be
t limited as to the contempt phase or the
2 case unless contempt charges were
| were first filed and a rule to show
| cause were issued against the railroad
company and it's officers. The distinc"
: ton was made that in the contempt
Q proceedings it would only be necessary
to produce proof that the injunctiols
had been violated while in criminal
y prosecution, detailed proof of specific
/ shipments would have to be shown.
= In a letter dated May 10Th the at
: t0rney general disapproved OF con
| tempt proceedings as suggested Dy
! special counsel. The letter says:
NO CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.
u 1.-THE advice which you give is that
). an application should be made for al
= attachment for contempt Of the iE-
junction against the railroad company
=, and its managing officers. There is
q nc difference between us as to proceed
- ing against the corporation itself. Ii
= the transactions set forth in the repot'
- | of the interstate commerce commission
;, in regard to the departure from tht
% published rates by the AtchisOn, 10
:, peka and Santa Fe railway system il
v favor Of the Colorado Fuel and lrof
h Co. are within the terms OF the IN
-, | junction, the evidence before the com
- mission shows with sufficient clearnes
~ | that that injunction has been violated
g. and the railroad company has peer
ri guilty of contempt Of court.
~ But you go further and recon
- mend proceedings against the manag
,s ing officers Of that company. L nave
examined transcript of the testimOn.
NJ taken by the commission There l
~ lot a syllable of testimony that MI
o. Ripley, the president of the road,
y MI. Morton, then one Of its vice pres
II idents, had any connection Whateve
F with the departure from the puDllShe'
= rates in favor of the Colorado Fue
20 and Iron Company or that they kneS
~ or suspected that transportation wa
~ furnished to this company III an
,d manner different from that prescribe
~ nv the open and published rate. Meth
.T X, ~
notest sWay referred to in the test
- mony or in the report of the commls
-. sion. Surely, it would not be conteno
60 ed that upon this state Of facts thos
| officials were subject TO pehdll! ~
contempt of court.
It After great consideration L am G
on the oDinion that some evidence Ougf
IL tc precede the accusation and that
e accusation SO grave in its characte
do ought not to be made unless there az
~ nears before it is made some eyiden(
IS i'm support Of 1t. / realize fully th5
on 7 have the power to make the accus;
er ti0n and no one can question IT. III
nosesssiOn of the power carries with
IL However. the responsibility tor L
er- scr1,pulOuS exercise. LII this cas-
;Iy Dpon the facts which nave state
lei 7 have reached the conclusion thE
he I ought not to make the apple;
"a tion for an attachment for conteml
re, AGAINST the officers of the railway con
* pany." , ,,
ch This conclusion, Mr.. Moody say
M was approved by the President, WI
IL directed that proceedings be brouSl
les AGAINST the railroad cunpany only.
tly GESIGNATION OF HARMON AN
hit, HUDSON.
pal The letter in reply to this contain
ny the resignation of Messrs. Harmt
The and hudson. Under date of June
the says:
,al, 1.-THE violation by a corporation
Or an injunction directed against 1t al
ate IFS officers always calls for III
me against such of them as had control