The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-06-22

| that tne department should have the
benefit of your advice upon them"
The next letter in the series was ad-
| dressed to the Attorney by
Messrs. Harmon and Judson. 1t re-
| viewed their recommendation or
| March II. that further testimony be
taken, and added that this testimony
was desirable, mot so much with a
view of procuring proof of the viola
| tion of the Injunction as a basis for
an attachment for contempt against
| the railroad company and its officers,
| as with the view of procuring detailed
proof of unlawful shipments so as TO
have proper basis of proceeding
under the criminal provisions OF the
Elkins act against the Colorado Fuel
& Iron Company and its officers"
SLUG FOUR
The letter then argued that testi
mony taken before a master would
be limited as to the contempt phase
of the case unless contempt charges
were first filed and a rule to show
cause was issued against the railroad
company and its officers. The dis
tinction was made that In the con-
tempt proceedings it would only be
necessary to produce proof that the
Injunction had been violated, while in
a criminal prosecution, detailed proof
of specific shipments would have to
be shown.
| Willing to Punish Road. Not Morton.
In a letter dated May 19, the Attor-
| ney General disapproved of contempt
proceedings as suggested by speclal
counsel rhe letter says:
The advice which you give is that
an application should be made for an
attachment for contempt OF the IN
| junction against the railroad company
IN officers There
| no difference between us as to pro-
ceeding against the corporation itseif,
| if in the transactions set forth IN the
report of the Interstate Commerce
| Commission in regard to the departure
from the published rates by the Atchl-
| son. Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad
system In favor of the Colorado Fuel
and Iron Company and within the
terms of the injunction, the evidence
! before the commission shows with
sufficient clearness that that inJunc-
| ton has been violated and the railroad
company has been guilty of contempt
| Of court
But you go further and recon-
mend proceedings against the man
aging officers of that company.
have examined a transcript OF the teS-
| timony taken by. the commission
There is not a syllable OF testimony
! that Mr. Ripley, the president of the
| road or Mr.. Morton, then one OF It's
vice-presidents mad any connection
whatever with the departure from the
| published rates in favor OF the Coio-
| RADIO Fuel and Iron Company, or thdt
| they knew or suspected tnat transpor-
tation was furnished TO this company
| i'm any manner different from that pre-
| scribed by the open and published
| rate. Neither of these officials were
| in the remotest way referred TO in the
| testimony or in the report of the com
mission. Surely, II would not De con-
| tended that upon this state of facts
| those officials were subject TO PEN
| atty for contempt of court
After great consideration, L am Oh
tho opinion that some evidence ought
| to precedc the accusation and that an
| accusation so grave in It's character
ought not to he made unless there ap-
pears before it is made SOME evidence
IN support of it, | realize fully that
| have the power to make the accuSa-
| ton and no one can question IL. Inc
! possession of the power carries with
| 1t, however, the responsibility for It's
scrupulous exercise. In this case,
upon the facts which | have stated,
! [ have reached the conclusion that L
| ought not to make the application Tor
an attachment for contempt against
| the officers of the railway company
| lnlS cOlclusIOIl, uhoopy ~
was approved by the President, who
directed that proceedings be brought
| against the railroad company only
As TO How to Reach Corporations.
The letter in reply to this contains
the resignation of Messrs. Harmon
and Judson. Under date of June D
| it says:
"1h he violation by corporation of
| d,rppfpd AGAINST il and
| its officers always calls for rule
! against such of them as have control
| of it's conduct to show cause why they
should not be held personally re-
sponsible. They are prima facie
guilty of disobedience. 1t was their
duty to see that the acts forbidden
we're not done as well as not to do
them. The action of the corporation
is necessarily preSumptive evidence
against it's principal officers who had
charge of the department in question.
What we have said is peculiarly
true of the great corporations of our
day They cannot be imprisoned,
and punishment by fine is not only in
adequate. but reaches the real cul-
prits only lightly, if at ALL The evils
with which we are now confronted
are corporate in name, but individual
in fact. Guilt is always personal.
So long as officials can hide behind
their corporations, no remedy can be
effective. When the government
searches out the guilty men and makes
corporate wrong doing mean personal
punishment and dishonor, the law Will
be obeyed."
The designations were accepted by
the Attorney General in a letter to
the counsel dated June 18th i'm which
he states that the evidence was In
sufficient for the purposes of the De-
nartment Of Justice: and in letter to
the President. under date of June 3rd,
the case is reviewed by the Attorney
General wh~. took the ground that
contempt proceedings should be in
stituted against the corporation, but
not against its officers.
To this communication President
Roosevelt replied under date of June
18th. saying in substance tnatN since
neither the Interstate Commerce
Commission nor the special counsel
had developed a single fact directly to
connect either of the officers Of the
Atkinson, Toneka and Santa Fe Rail-
road with a wilfull violation Of the
injunction issued by the court, it
would be unfair and wholly without
justification to institute proceedings
individually against the officers of the