Arizona republican., 1905-06-22
President Roosevelt Gives
 Secretary of the Navy
THE ATCHSON REBATES
If Anything Turns Out to Have Been Unlawrully Done Subordinate Officials Were to Blame and Ger. tainly Not Fir. Morton.

press himself in the most positive terms complimentary of the integrity of Paul Morton, former vice presi- dent of the Atchison, Topeka and San ta Fe Railroad company, and now concluding his duties as secretary of the navy that he may assume the chairmanship of the board of directors of the Equitable Life Assurance soci- ety of New York. These expressions are contained in two letters, one ad- dressed to the attorney general and the other to MT. Morton. The letters were made public today by the ad- ministratiOn, together with a number of others which taken together, show the precise point of difference between the department of justice and Messrs. Harmon and Judson, who recently re- signed as special counsel for the gov ernment in the rebate case involving theI Santa Fe and the Colorado Fuel & Iron company.
 The special counsel wished to bring complete proceedings against the of ficers of the road, which would include MT. Morton Their position was that the testimony adduced before the in tepstate commerce commission estab- lished a violation of the court order of March 2S, 1902, restraining the company from executing any agree ment to transport interstate traffic at rates lower than the published tariff of the road This testimony, they contended. constituted a prima facis case against the officers of the road and the only way to ascertain their guilt or innocence was through com. plete proceedings
 Attorney General Moody opposed brin ging contempt proceedings on the ground that while the evidence before the commission might show a violation of the injunction by the road, it con tained nothing charging any officer of the company with such violation President Roosevelt took the same view. Both the president and the at torney general agreed that contempt proceedings should be instituted i'm personally against the corporation; in both the Colorado Fuel and the Inter- national Harvester case. The latter case, the president seys, stands exactly on the same footing and involves prac, ticaliy all of the western roads. The correspondence began with q letter from Messrs. Harmon and Jud- son to the attorney general dated February 2s last in which was given a review of the testimony in the Col orado Fuel case before the interstate commerce commission with the con- clusion that a violation of the injunc- tion has been shown.
 In part the letter said:
 Prom August, 1902. until December, 1904 the railway company, (referring to the Santa Fe) continuously trans ported coal for the Colorado Fuel and Iron company at less than the publish ed rates then in force. from various points in Colorado and elsewhere, to Fl Paso, Texas; Deming. N. M, and other places to which such transporta- ton was interstate commerce. This was done by a secret arrangement be- tween the two companies under which the coal was apparently billed at the puhl' shed rate of freight, although in fact. tfe price of coal was included. Tie railroad company collected the amount shown by the billing and paid owe, part of it to the fuel company as the price of coal, making the real charge for transportation less than the published rate by just that amount. At the same time the rates given and charged other shippers were the pub lished tariff rates without any deduc- tion. The plan and way it was carried out, IlainIy indicated an intention to deceive the government and the public and to enable the fuel company to gain rtCnopoly of the coal supply at the points involved by giving them a strong advantage over the competitors in the actual cost of transportat The mo- tive for thus favoring the fuel com pany does not appear in the evidence thus far taken but the fact is clear
 Messrs. Harmon and Judson pro- ceeded to recommend that the railroad comIany and all of it's principal of ftcers and agents. perhaps including some subordinate officers and agents be arIaigned for contempt of court for making and carrying out the agree ment, referred to.
 Thee days later the special counsel in a>Ieply to the letter of the attorney general suggested that an order be is sued for the taking of further testi- mony tcIo~e an examiner in Kansas s City.
 Again cn March 20, the attorney gen. er3u was addressed by Messrs Harmon and Irdson. who said: ''We can go l.c further " :thCut the use. of a pr cess to secu.t formal evidence and other proof and therefore again recommend ed COT tempt proceedings and the talk .inE Of testimony before a master ap- pointed I. r that purpose in the case pending il tie United States Ci..;uit court at kansas City"
 1h~ de1 to take further testlta ny requested by special counsel was is~ sued by the attorney general. In a let t.r dated May 19, the attorney general disapIrcN ed of the contempt proc eed- ings, as suggested by special counsel anti says: ''The advice which you cIve k that an application should be '::adS for an attachment for contempt of the injunctitl against the railroad "o'l- pary and ifs managing officers. \ Dw there is a difference between Us as Q tie proceedings against the co<2Hl~