New-York tribune., 1905-12-18
PRESIDENT ON SANTA FE.
fdPPROVES ACTION TAKEN,
Nr. Roose0eIt Writes in Reply to
Letter from Mr.. Moodu.

4
washington, Dec 1.-TWO important letters
.onceraing the action OF the government against
tbs Atchison. Topeka and Santa Be Railway
Company were made public to-day by authority
~ President Roosevelt. The letters are under
fete OF the 18th and 18th inst respectively, one
being written by Attorney General Moody and
,he other by the President. The letters quote
eourt decisions and contain considerable infor-
nation concerning the action Of the President
snd the Attorney General IN the case, particu-
iar,y with reference TO the work of the special
counsel Mr.. Harmon, OF Cincinnati, and Mr.
Judson OF St Louis, who were employed by the
government to inquire into the Iacts of the case
and who subsequently withdrew from 1t because
their recommendations as to the prosecution of
the Santa Fe officials We're not adopted.
The history of the Santa Fe case is reviewed
in tho letter by Mr. Moody. and the Attorney
Ge rs position is approved by the President
IN . second letter. The Attorney General
say.
tory Of the case against The Atchison. Topeka and
psny was charged with unlawful rates and prso-
osS ICES 81 and iron CompsnV and o eteen me o2 S
beaTing OF The recent decision of Judge Phillips Of
western District OF Missouri. upon the case. and
especially upon the action which you have hereto
fore taken respecting It
hEROEST AGAINST ACTION.
The Attorney General recftes the investiga-
ron and report of the Interstate Commerce
Commission. which suggested that the roads
practice was In violation Of restraining order
issued against it IN March 1909. on a bill In
equity brought by the United States The At
soraey General reported to the President that
proceedings under the restraining order could
net be maintained. saying:
gave you probably would have been regarded by
you as conclusive against the undertaking OF any
action based upon the restraining order. But the
circumstances were extraordinary, and very great
ssct that Mr.. Morton member of your Cabinet
bad been @ @yioe-PEesident OF the railway company
ins part OF the time in which the practices com
..rnpioynent Of special counsel Of emiaencs and
you directed their employment,
The instructions TO the counsel dated Feb
rzsry IL last, the letter shows. presented two
eusstions-1rst, IN what manner If any, the in
Junction In this case affected by the de-
cixion OF the Supreme Court in the Missouri
Pacific Railway Company case against the
Omitted States, and. second, in case coal was
within the scope OF the INJUNCTION at all by rea-
eca Of the general clause in the decree enjoin-
tns the Santa Fe company from transporting
any other interstate traffic at less than it's
Published rates. whether this general Injunction
vssw Of parts of the recent decision OF the Su-
rre1ns Court in the Beef Trust case.
Tbs special counsel" the Attorney General
Esys, entertained opinion upon these two
questions different from that had expressed to
ycrs and that opinion. by your direction. was ao-
eriascsd IN for the purpose OF further action"
DIFFERENCES WITH COUNSEL.
Later. the letter continues. the difference
r,e%x-
trad IS 20 whether Information for contempt
of the injunction should be fled against the
managing officers of the corporation. On April
Il. 1905. counsel held that upon investigation
Of the charge Of contempt, evidence might be
forshconatnE 70 show Whistler the managing
oencers had been guilty Of contempt not"
Attorney General Moody adds ~The nature
d The evidence which might be expected was
not Indicated" On May 1s last the Attorney
General says he wrote the special counsel that
oers was no testimony against any except the
minor or1c,als and Mr.. Biddle. who might claim
tnuunity. and that to Messrs Ripley and
Norton president and vice-president of the
Santa Fe at the time, some evidence ought to
yReoede an accusation Of contempt of court
Ths letter reviews the contempt proceedings
Brought against the company itself by the Presi-
dGafE direction and Judge Philips's order on De-
o.nbsr last Quashing the informations Judge
lSitps cited In connection with this the opin-
na OF the Supreme Court Of the United States
a the Beef Trust case. and held that the rec
ard furnished foundation for imputins to
Aes.rs Ripley and Morton, president and vice.
president OF the road at the time. any personal
sNponsibi1ity for the alleged violation Of the
Interstate Commerce law The Attorney Gen
exis Letter says:
7 have stated that Judge Philips issued the
tct1nins order drawn into question by these in
FrTnatons for contempt The order was issued
q him after full argument by counsel for the
ooubtedly, his decision in the contempt cases was
ineons!stent with his decision upon the original
f-l Ia equity praying the injunction, demurrer
70 which he oVerruled, subsequently issuing the
restraining order. But since his first decision the
supreme Court had decided the cases of the Mis-
souri Pacific Railway Company the United
sxtes and Swift the United States, and Judge
F11nps regarded these decisions fatal to the
fslctty Of the restraining order. hardly need say
tast In my opinion the decision of Judge Philips
= correct expression Of the law because, you
saow, II is in conformity with the advice given
70 Fou At the very threshold Of these proceedings,
and az all times from then until now, believed
W ne to be sound In any event. the decision Is
MA because the government has 10 appeal upon
question OF this kind.
THE PRESIDENTS LETTER.
Tie Presidents letter to the Attorney General
fo5ou7r.