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

pioyed by the governments 10 inquire
9ht" the facts of the case and VINO
subsequently Withdrew from il be-
cause their recommendations as to the
= prosecution of the santa Re officials
were not adopted
Letter of Mr.. Moody.
The history of the Santa Fe case is
reviewed in The letter by NIr. Moody.
ana the attorney generals position is
approved by the president i'm the sec
ond letter.
You direct me" the attorney gem
4 eral replies. TO furnish you with a
4 concise history 0f the case against the
AIchlson, Topeka & Santa Pc railway.
III when tho- company was charged
! with unlawful rates and practices IN
+ the transportation of coal for Iae colo
RADIO Fuel * Iron company, and "a state
ment OF the bearing OF the recent de-
clslon Of Judge Philips OF the circuit
court OF the United states for the
western district of Missouri upon the
case and especially upon the action
which you have heretofore taken re-
s spcctiug.'
The attorney general recites the in
NeSJigatlon and the report of the inter
state commerce commission. which re-
port suggested the roads practice was
An violation of a restraining order is
sued against the raj way company I'm
March, 1902, upon n bin ia equity
brought by the United States. The
attorney general reported 10 the presi-
dent that proceedings under the re-
hlramlng order could not be main
taiEed
Unusual Circumstances.
Under ordinary conditions. the lei
Ter contAuo thc advice which ] gave
you probably would have been regard
ed by you as conclusive against the
! undertakng of amy action based upon
me restraining order. But the cir
cumstances viii be- extraordinary.
Very great public interest existed ia
the case aroused by the fact that Mr..
Morton, q member of your cabinet had
been vice. president of the railway COM
"a uy charged With the management
+ of the tfah-c during part of the time
: IN which the practices complained of.
therefore sugEestcl che employment
. Of special counsel of cmincuce and you
4 directed their employment.
The instructions r that date, Feb
4 u last presented TWO opinions.
First n what manner, IF any. the
Injunction iu this ease was affected by
fhe decision of the supreme court I'm
rha Missouri Pacific railway ease
as inst the United States and secOn D.
20 Use coal is within the scope of the
i INJUNCTION at all 10y reason of the gen
1 er- clause in the decree rujoinug the
II Santa Re company from transporting
Elf other Interstate traffic at less than
It's published rates whether this gem
eral injunction 10 obey the law has
any force or virtue i'm IT, IN view of
parts of the recent decision of the SUI
Dremc court in the beef trust case.
Differed With Moodv
The special counsel" the attorney
general says, entertained am opinion
upon these two questions different
nom that i had expressed 10 You. and
that opinion by your direction was
acquesced i'm for the purpose of fur
ther action,
Later. difference arose between
counsel nd the attorney general as u
whether am information for -Outcmpt
OF the Injunction sho,l. bee hleI against
The mauaBing officers OF the corpora
ton. ON April IL, 1908, counsel held
that upon Investigation of the charge
OF contempt evidence might be forth
coming 60 show whether the managing
officers -ad been guilty Of contempt o.
not"
Attorney General Moody adds. The
. nature of the evidence which might be
. expected was not Indicated
On May 10 last the attorney general
wrote the special counsel that there
was mo- testimony dEainst any except
the minor officials and Mr.. Eiddle who
| might claim immunity, and that rs 60
NCssrs. Ripley and Morton. president
and vice president of the Santa Fe at
that time, some evidence 0uglt To pre-
Cede an accusation of contempt Of
court.
Contempt Proceedings.
The latter reviews the contempt pro-
Ccedings brought against the company
itself by The pres dents direction and
Judge Philips order on Dec. { last
Quashmg The information. judge Phil
ips cited i'm this connection the opinion
OF the supreme court of the Gni-ed
states In the beef trust ease. and
held that the record furnished no
foundation for imputug Go Messls-
Ripley and Morton, president and vice
president of the road al thai time, any
personal responsibility for the alleged
Violation OF the interstate commerce
law. The attorney generals letter con-
e. DIES ms follows:
~ have stated that Judge Philips IS
sd The restraining order drawn into
Tie question by these iuf0rmatious for
CONTEMPT The order was issued by him
after fun argument bv counsel for
the United States and for the railway
company Undoubtedly his decision In
! the contempt eases was Inconsistent
| with his action upon the original bin
an equity praying the injunction. q de-
1 murrcr 10 which he Oyerruled, suisse
l Ouently issuing the restraining order
! BUT since his first decision The supreme
/ court had decided the cases of the
+ Missouri Pacific Railway company VS..
the United States and Swift Us. the
. United States and judge Philips re-.
earded these two decisions as fatal 90
tie validity Of the restraining order
hardly need 10 saw that IN my opinion
The decision of Judge Philips is a COR
rect expression of the law because as
you know. ID Is In conformity with the
advice given TO YOU al the very thresh-
old OF these proceedings and at all
times from then until now. believed by
u, b an-L--. In nv .-.-.L-H -La.- IL