The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1905-12-18

inns klnu.
RooseVeit's Reply.
The presidents letter to the attorney
general follows:
The White House, Washington, Dec.
-, l9oJ.-Sir; / have received your let
ter of Dec. 10 1905. The facts therein
set forth prove in conclusive fashion
thai you were absolutely right in the
position you have an along taken both
as regards the proceedings against the
company implicated itself and as re
CARDS the further proceedings proposed
against the officers of the company.
Including Paul Morton, recently a
member OF my cabinet In my letter
Of June T. last N reply TO yours Of
June j, i'm which YOU advised the course
which has actually been taken and
which has been So slsnally justified by
the event. Z wrote you that in my judg
ment, as in your own, yOu would have
been wholly WilhOu, justification in
proceeding Individually against the Of
dcers as there was Rot a particle OF
eN dence against them.
Il added one Of the officers, Mr.
Morton, is a member of my cabinet.
This fact is not to be- allowed 10 shield
him, nor on the other hand is it to be
allowed 10 cause him to be singled out.
or The officers with whom he associated
TO be singled out for attack
Ordered Moody to Proceed.
II directed you to proceed against
the company and of course TO proceed
against any individual officer if any
testimony Was produced showing that
he had been personally guilty. either by
act or cunniVanCe, stating that l agreed
with the doubt you had expressed
as % whether there was good
ground for proceeding even against
the companies, but that l also agreed
with you that we should try TO obtain
the judgment of the court on the
question as 10 whether the injunction
was sufficient, and whether, therefore,
there was any ground of action what
ever. The result shows that you We're
entirely right in your doubt whether
the injunction was sufficient TO cover
the case. ] am much pleased with the
remarks quoted by you I'm which Judge
Philips speaks of the attack made on
Paul Morton, Your original advice to
me was 10 direct that the evidence be
fore The special counsel who had ad-
Nised action against these and other
officials individually. should be sub
mitted 10 JUDGE Philips, who had is
sued the injunction, 70 see whether
action could be taken against ans OF
them personally. l refused 10 take
this action. Judge Philips Cwho had
before him all the evidence which was
before the special cOmseD in his deci-
sion exactly covers the point which
would have been raised had / followed
your advice He says: This instance
has attracted considerable public at
tentiOn because of the sensational as
sociation of the name of Paul Morton,
ne vice president of the defendant
company with the transaction. The
record in the case, however, including
the evidence taken before the inter-
state commerce commission, fails TO
furnish any foundation for imputing
O. this gentleman any personal respOn-
sibility for the alleged violation Of the
interstate commerce law
No Ground for Action.
The decision Of the court, there
fore. is not only that you were abso-
lutely right IN the advice You gave
me as 10 the corporation but. further
more, and explicitly. that there was no
possible ground for action against Mr..
Morton. No action taken in addition
TO that which you proposed could
properly have been taken. The course
actually taken was absolutely proper,
and the decision of the court, and the
opinion of the judge above quoted,
show that To have taken the course
proposed by the special counsel would
have been unjust. Sincerely yours,
"'T II EOnOR r ROOCE,NrT r -