Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-12-18
sUsTAINs Mr.. MOODY
PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT ON THE
SANTA FE CASES.
Reasons Why the Prosecution Of Paul
Morton, Formerly Vice President
of the Road, Was Not Brought.

Correspondence between Attorney General
Moody and President Roosevelt relating to
the now celebrated rebate cases against the
Santa Fe railroad has been made public
The President having asked for history
of the case. received a letter from Mr.
Moody under date of December -, giving
a review of the matter and the reasons why
prosecution was not brought against Paul
Morton, formerly vice president of the
road.
The Presidents Response.
The Presidents letter to the Attorney
General follows:
THE WHITE HOUSE.
'WASHINGTON, December Is, 1905.
"Sir: l have received your letter of De-
cember I3. The facts therein set forth
prove In conclusive fashion that you were
absolutely right in the position you have
all along taken, both as regards the pro-
ceedings against the company implicated IT.
self and as regards the further proceeding
proposed against the officers of the COM
pany. including Mr.. Paul Morton, recently
a member of my cabinet. In my letter of
June IL last, in reply to yours of June B in
which you advised the course which, has
actually been taken, and which has been
50 signally justified by the event, / wrote
you that in my Judgment. as in your own,
you would have been wholly without justi-
fica ton in proceeding individually against
Tile OllCGfS OIL Iiic COinpStHy, dS luSlc WAS
rot a particle of evidence against them.
added that: One of the officers Mr.. Nor
ton. is 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 cut, or the officers with
whom he associated to be singled out, for
attack
II directed you to proceed against the
cen. pany and of course to proceed against
any Individual officer If any testimony was
produced showing that he had been person.
ally guilty either by act or eonnivence;
stating that l agreed with the doubt you
had experienced 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 judg
ment of the court on the question as to
whether the injunction was Sufficient, and
whether, therefore, there@was any ground
Of action whatever. 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 attacks made on Mr..
Paul Morton Your original advice to me
was to direct that the evidence to the spe-
cial counsel who had advised action against
these and oiher officials individually. should
be submitted to Judge Philips, who had
issued the Injunction. to see whether action
could be taken against any of them per-
sol ally refused to take this action.
Judge Philips View.
Judge Philips fwho had before him all
the evidence which was before the special
counsel In his decision exactly covers the
point which would have been raised IL
had followed your advice. He says: This
instance has attracted considerable public
attention, because OF the sensa tional assoc
citation OF the names Of Paul Morton, then
with the transaction. 2 he record in the
ease however, Including the evidence taken
before the interstate coii1lnerce commits