The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-06-22
Roosevelt UphoIds Moody.

Attorney General
Roosevelt -UphoIds Moody.
In letter to the president under date
/ Of June 8, the case is reviewed by the
| attorney general, in which is reiterated
/ his views that proceedings for contempt
/ should be begun against the offending
! railroad company but not against it's
/ officers.
President Roosevelt upholds this view
! in a reply under date of June II, as
/ follows:
white House. Washington. June u,
s 1905.
sidered your letters of the 31st ult- and
Sd inst I entirely agree with your con-
/ clusions. In my opinion you would be
/ wholly without justification in proceed
I ing individually against the officers OF
] the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe rail-
road for contempt when neither the IN
terstate commerce commission nor the
| special counsel you have employed nave
/ developed a single fact of any kind pc
yond the holding of their offices tending
/ to implcate any one OF these oIncers-
! One of the officers, Mr.. Morton, IS
member of my cabinet. This tact 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 is associated, to be SIN
/ gled out, for attack
AT about the same time that the m
/ junction was obtained against the
| Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, an IN
| junction was obtained against several
! other western railroads. Subsequently
/ it was developed by the interstate com
merce commission that under the gulSe
| of A division of rates. unlawful rebates
| were given by those railroads 10 the
! International Harvester company just
as a rebate was given by the Atch1son'
| TODeka & Santa Fe in the case OF the
/ Colorado Fuel and Iron company. Upon
being called to the case by the inter-
! state commerce commission, the unlaW-
f11l practice was abandoned in the mar
vester case, as it was abandoned IN TINS
case of the Colorado Fuel company
/ The two cases stand precisely on par.
/ No one has suggested, and, as Tar as
am aware, no one has thought OF su5
costing that we should proceed indl-
VidualIy against the officers OF the
/ roads engaged in this international
Harvester company affair; yet. the case
/ is exactly parallel to this Atchison case,
and if such action as you have refused
to take was taken against the ofhcers
of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa re II
would also have to be taken IN the case
of the International Harvester company
against the officers Of every raliroao
running west of Chicago. There IS, OF
! course, no possible excuse for dlscrlTn-
mating one case from the otner-
Accepts Nforton's Denial.
you advise me to direct the sub
mission of the printed evidence taken
by the interstate commerce commission
Cthe only evidence before the spscidl
counseD to Judge Philips who had IS
sued the Injunction to see Whether on
this published evidence, in winch there
is not syllable directly bearing Oh
Mr. Morton or any one OF his coleag ues
in the management of the road, acIiOn
co1Id be taken against any one OF them
personally I did not take this advice
for two reasons. First, II II was not
for Mr.. Morton's being in my cabinet,
neither You nor I would dream OF Iol-
lowing such a course in this instance;
and we could not follow 1t save on con-
dition of also following 1t IN the case
Of the harvester company ana IN all
similar cases-Which, in my judgment,
xElo,IId MT MS I'M a wholly untenable po-
sition. Second, have received from
Mr. Morton a letter, OF winch lncIose
YOU a copy, together with a copy OF my
renIv In il YOU will see that Mr.. NOR
ION not only states in the most une-
o11ivocaI manner that he had no know
ledge whatever of the unlawful prac-
tice complained of, but also SHOWS by
fha quotation of documents issued I'M
der his direction that all such unlaw-
fuI practices were specifically forbidden
nv him, and that the attention OF MS
subordfnates was repeatedly called TO
the necessity of complying with the law
in this respect. When there is no one
shadow of testimony against him, ana
when whatever evidence has been sub
mitted shows explicitly that he IS not
guilty. it seems to me that there is no
warrant WIdLChCA III StAA - S--S4----7
against him.
Not After Revenge.
1.-THE course that you have followed
in dealing with all these corporation
matters has been resOlute and has had
my heartiest approval. The aim OF
the administration has been IN the
first place to stop the unlawful prac-
tees We have not proceeded per-
sonally against any of the officers ur-
less there was legal evidence showing
that their conduct had been WfltulIy
of such a nature as to render 1t our
dutv to try to punish them personally
no less than to try to put an end to
the Objectionable practices. You per
haps remember that When the admin
istratiOn brought the Northern Secur-
titles suit there was much criticism of
US for not undertaking criminal pro-
ceedings against the principal directors
in the Northern Securities corporation.
The view of the administration at that
time was that such a proceeding would
be unjust to the men concerned and
not to the advantage of the public
Events have. I think, shown this view
to be correct
The Beef Trust Prosecution.
In the same way when a year or
two ago when injunctiOns were OBJ
tanned against the corporations known
popularity as the beef trust, one re-
port was made at the time to proceed
personally against the individuals in
those COTpOId bAoi4S- A7ii1CS litei1s leStl-
mony has been offered US, to show
that the packing companies have vio-
lated this injunction and that the vio-
Iation was deliberate and willful on
the part of number of individuals. Of
the weight and sufficiency of this evil
dence it is not for me to judge. With
my approval the department of JUS
tice. with the assistance of the depart
ment of commerce and labor, has for
some months been endeavoring to find
ont whether or not they can obtain
legal evidence of such willful and de-
liberate violation Of the Injunction by
any individual. If the grand jury now
sitting in Chicago finds indictments
against any individuals concerned in
the packing corporations, it will be
because in their judgment such legal
evidence Of the violation of the injunc-