Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-12-18

Is, l905--Sir: have received your let
Ter of Dec. -. 1908. The facts therein
set forth prove I'm conclusive fashion
that you were absolutely right In the
position you have all 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. in
Guiding Paul Morton recently mem
Der of my cabinet. In my letter Of
June IL last, in reply 10 yours OF June o,
In which you advised the course which
has actually been taken and which has
been so signally justified by the event.
wrote YOU that in my judgment. as IN
your own, you would have been wholly
without justification In proceeding in
dividually against the officers as there
was not particle OF evidence against
them
Il added one Of the officers, Mr..
Morton Is a member OF my cabinet.
This fact is not to be allowed to shield
him, nor on the other hand Is It to be
allowed to cause him to be singled out,
or the officers with whom he associated
to be singled out for attack
II directed you TO proceed against
the company and of course TO proceed
against any individual officer II any
testimony was produced showing that
he had been personally guilty, either by
act or eonnivance, stating that agreed
with the doubt you had expressed
as to whether there WAS good
ground for proceeding even against
the companies, but that ! also agreed
with you that we should try to obtain
the judgment OF the court on the
question as to whether the injunction
was sufficient. and whether, therefore,
there was any ground of action what
ever. The result shows that you were
entirely right In your doubt whether
the injunction was sufficient to cover
the case. | am much pleased with the
remarks quoted by you In which Judge
Philips speaks OF the attack made on
Paul Morton. Your original advice to
me was TO direct that the evidence be-
fore the special counsel who had ad-
vised action against these and other
officials individually. should be sub
mitted to Judge Philips, who had is
sued the injunction, to see whether
action could be taken against any of
them personally. | refused to take
this action. Judge Philips (who had
before him all the evidence which was
before the special counse) In his deci-
sion exactly covers the point which
NDulu nave DttT TdlSeu nuI L lOllOWtu
your advice. lie says: This instance
has attracted considerable public at
tentlon because OF the sensational as
ISOLATION of the name OF Paul Morton.
the 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. falls to
furnish any foundation for imputng
to this gentleman any personal respon-
sibllity for the alleged violation Of the
interstate commerce law
THE decision OF the court, there
fore, is not only that you were abso-
lutey right In the advice you gave
me as to 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,
THEODORE ROOSEVELT"