The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-06-22

makes corporate wrong doing mean personal punishment and dishonor, thal
 Your opinion. which commands greatl respect, is by TO means due to yourl ofiice alone. and we appreciate the deepl sense of official responsibility which, yom express. but the nature and cir cumstances of our appointment imposel a certain independent responsibility up-I cn us which we feel would uot be me.l
 we therefore consider that we navel discharged the duty which you did usI ing you most sincerely for your con-l stant courtesy and consideration vel emain, Very respectfully,
 "Judscn Harmon, Frederick N Judson."
 Moody's Reply. The resignati6ns were accepted byl the Attorney General In a letter to thu counsel dated June 13.
 Tn this letter MT. Moody says:
 'T regret your conclusion, but not doubting that you have arrived at 1t after great consideration, inspired by a sense of your duty. I must accept 1t.
 T was impressed with the fact that the investigation of the subject made by the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion. while doubtless adequate for It's purposes, was insufficient for the pur- poses of the department of justice. To what extent BnIpmentb OI codl made under the rate not published were subject to the control of the Fed eral Government and within the publi- cations of the interstate commerce law was not made at all clear by the report of. the commission. Moreover. having especial reference to theS restrainins order of the Circuit Court of Missouri, any, of such transportation was as between the States, the restraining or der being by its terms directed against still further, the report of the com mission and the testimony taken be- fore 1t are silent as to individual re- you say, with facts which show that the law had been violated without at tempting to fix responsibility on any particular officer of the railroad com
 T had hoped that you would find 1t practicable to elicit further and more specific information. at least in the & re- mining upon the character of the pro ceedings. to be taken for the vindica-
 9si q fully appreciate the weight of the reasons. which. though they have not trary conclusion. In accepting your resignation, permit me to assure you of my high personal regard
 Very awlp arwSspfaftfMTilgdS fl. MoSgdSy. "Attorncy General" Tn a letter to the President under date of June 30, the case Is reviewed by the Attorney General, in which Is for contempt should be begun against the offending railroad company. but not against its officers. President under date of June 12 as follows: Roosevelte View.
 White House, June 13. sidered your letters of the Sist ult and 3rd inst. I entirely agree with your conclusions. In my, opinion you would ce.Sing ce MnSii inGiViduaIly % p agsinst the he ofi- cers of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway for contempt when neither the Interstate, ae, Commerce 2 commission SaTa ssD ployed have developed a single fact of any kind beyond the holding of their 9ces tending to Islessse ds sse any one MT pr This fact is not to be allowed to shield nor on the other hand Is 1t to be all the officers with whom he is associated to be singled out for attack.
 At about the same time that the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe, an in- junction was obtained against several Western roads: Subsequently 1t was Commission that under the guise of division Of rates unlawful rebates were given by these railroads to the Inter-
 
 rebate was given by the Atchison In ths case of the Colorado Fuel Com pany. Upon attention being called to Commission the unlawful practice was abandoned in the harvester case. as 1t was aEdoned in this case Of the Col stand precisely on a par. No one has suggested, and as far as am aware no one has thought of suggesting. that we proceed individually against the offi- cers of the roads engaged in this Inter national Harvester Company affair Yet the case is exactly parallel to this and if such action as you have refused to take was taken against the officers of the A. T. & S. F. Railroad 1t will the International Harvestor Company, against the officers of every railroad running west of Chicago. There is. of Eliminating f of one case from nj the other.
 You advise me to direct the submis- sion of the printed evidence taken by the Interstate Commerce r CSmmlssitGni % aHtni counseD, to Judge Phillips, who had issued the injunction to see whether on this published evidence. in which there Is no syllable directly bearing on Mir. the management of the road, action could be taken against any one of th3m personally. I did not take this advice for two reasons.
 Presidents Reasons.
 "First-If 1t was not for Mr. Morton's being in my cabinet, neither you nor would desire following such course as in this instance; and we could not foi- low it save on condition of also follow ing 1t in the case of the Harvester Com. pany, and in all similar caseB-whichs In my judgment would put us in q wholly untenable position.
 Morton a letter of which enclose you a copy, together with a copy of my re- ply In 1t you will see that Mir. Nor ton not only states in the most unequiv- ocal manner that he had no knowledge whatever of the unlawful practice com of a dncumant issued under hls direc- ton that all such unlawful practices were specially forbidden by him and that the attention of his subordinates was repeatedly called to tho necessity of complying with the law in this re- speet. When there is thus not one shadow of testimony against him and when whatever evidence has been sub mitted, shows explicitly that he Is not guilty. 1t seems to me that there Is no against him The aim of the admins tration has been in the first place to stop the unlawful practice. We have not proceeded personally against any of the officers unless there was legal evidence showing that their conduct render it our duty to try to punish them personally no less than to But an end to the objectionable practices. You perhaps remember that when the Ad- ministration brought the Northern Be- curities suit there was much criticism of us for not undertaking criminal pro- ceedings against the principal directors in the Northern Security Corporation. The view of the administration at that time was that such proceeding would