Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1905-06-22

the points involved by giving them a
Strong advantage over competitors i'm
the actlal cost Df TRANSFORMATION
No 'nr:"nty fer Officers.
lie letter Iecited that only one Of
&c officers Of either cnirpaEy. hal
Leon called as witnesses ar! That no
i.r:h'ii:tv fiCn prosecution could DE
claimed hy a;:y Of tli,: other clticcrs of
2itbcr company. No papers had beer
submitted by the fuel company, and
consequently no immunity could he
claimed for il. Certain papers had been
hut only such MS are by law made rn':-
lie. consequently no immunity claim
would stand thereby. Mcsars. Harmon
and JudiOn recommended shat the
railtua,l company and all of its princi.
pal officers and agents. perhaps in
ri; ding sn"ic subordinate officers and
;.scn's. be arraigncd for contempt of
cnnrt in making and carrying cut the
agreement referred to.
Some further correspondence en-.
sued. cntliuS H. second recommends.
tiOr of MesSrS. Harmon and Ju,lSon Of
contempt proceedings on The grt un:i
that only 10y judicial process could for.
NAL proof be obtained to pinisl, for
contempt of court AMI also clininally.
Attorney General Moody replied:
Before proceeding for contempt.
Or c''innal proceedings. against eithe-
.hc Iailluad. or The fuel company, Or
their officers or agents are begun. L
desire that all the material facts
e.:au''l lie before the department and
l.iat The dcpai tmcnt should have the
hr:.Cf!. If y3ur ;rlvirc upon them -
Discussed Methods of Procedure.
The "tNL l'rter i'm the series was nd
dressed to the attorney general by
Nests. lIar'lon and hudson. 1t re-
Viewed their recommendation of
March L. that further Testimony lie Ia.
I'm and aided that this testimony was
d' sira;,lr mot .u.much with Il view az
Injunction as Il basis for All attack
III: ut fnr coutcn' ut against The railroad
company AMI its officers. as Will the
View of procuring; detailed proof of I'M
Jaw! II shiImnclts, ~ as to haze a
p.'M.rr basis Of Proceeding under tn.
criminal provisions Df tho Elkins az!
against tho Colorado Fuel & Iron
Company ana lis officers
The letter then argued that tcsti
inCny taken before Il master would be-
limited rs 10 the contempt phase Of
tho ca.c unless contempt charge;
were issued against the railro;d com.
p;inv III its officers The distinction
WIS 'na,lG that in tia contempt pro.
crctl;Ies ii wuuld only he necessary
tn prodnce proof that The Injunction
had been violated. while in criminal
prc3ccu';pn detailed proof of sI;cci
Tic shipments would have to lie sllawn
Attorney General Disapproued.
In Il letter dated May 10. the altor.
ncy general disanprovcd of contempt
Er"ccc'l;ngs ms suggested by. spccia!
ccnnSel The letter saws:
TIE advise which, you give is that
IN apple alton .l.uiIli he made fur an
ht'i':hment for contempt of the in
i':nciio:: against the rail- DAD cnmpanv
and It's managing officers There is no
difference between us as To proceed
~. against the corporation itself IL
tie transactions set forth in Tho. re-.
port OF the Interstate ctunmcrc.,
commission i'll regard TO The depar
turc from The published rates by tho
hichson. TOPEKA & Santc Fc Rail; Dad
In favor Of ihr Colorado Fuel & IIol
Company are in Violation of tho terms
OF The injunct jon, the evidence before
nc commission shows with sufficient
ch'arIess that The Injunction has ;,ccn
violated ami the railroad company has
h'tn guilty Of contempt Of court.
To Mcrton's Defense.
but You go further. am, recommend
proceedings against the managing Of.
ii'rrs nf that company. have OK.
n ''i-.G transcript nf the testimony
taken by the commission There Is
MT syllable of testimony that Mir
Eirl"y. the president Of The road, MIR.
Morton. Il CT one of its vicc.presi.
dents, had any connection whatever
with the departure from tie published
rates IT, favor of the Colorado Fuel
d Tor Company. or that they knew
II suspected HAT transportation was;
Furnished to this company in any man
ner different frcm that prescribed by
The oren anu published rate. Neither