The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-06-22

sense OF official responsibility which you
express. But the nature and circumstances
OF our appointment impose certain in
dependent responsibility upon lis which
we feel would not he met by proceed
ing against the corporation alone.
I'VE therefore consider that we have
now discharged the duty which you did
us the honor to entrust to US.
In his reply on June IL MIR Moody ex-
presses regret that they have been obliged
to differ in regard to the method of pro.
s % and he accepts the resignati k Of
declares that while the report Of the Inter
state Commerce Commission was doubt
less adequate for it's purposes. It was
insufficient for the purposes of the Depart
ment of Justice"
MOODY TELLS THE PRESIDENT.
The next letter in the series as given
out to-day. is dated June and was adj
dressed to the President by the Attorney
General. In it he reviews the whole case
and adds:
But l do not believe that proceedings
ought to be begun against officers of the
corporation until some evidence is forth
coming that they did. either by act or
connivance, have some relation to the
guilty conduct Mr.. Ripley was the
all the time the transactions referred to
occurred. and Mr.. Morton, member OF
your Cabinet. during part of the time
was one Of its vice-presidents, and among
his duties was the management of the freight
traffic of the system.
Il do not find a scintilla Of evidence taken
before. the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion which tends to show that either OF these
officials had the slightest connection with
the misconduct complained of or any
knowledge whatever of its existence. When
it Is considered that the gravamen OF the
offense Is the transportation OF coal without
the publication Of the rate at which 1t was
transported. and further considered that
the rate schedules of great railway system
are very numerous, it seems to me unjust
tempt Of court should be made in the con-
dition Of the evidence which have de-
scribed.'
Mr. RoOsevelt's Reply.
On June IL, or the day before the resigna-
tions Of Messrs. Harmon and Judson were
accepted, the President wrote to the At
toTney- General, saying, .,,.,.o
In my opinion you would be wholly with
out justification in proceeding individually
against the officers Of the Atchison Topeka
and Santa Fe Railway for contempt
when neither the Interstate Commerce
have Employed have developed a single
fact Of any kind beyond the holding of
their Offices tending to imphcate any one
Of these officers. One Of the officers.
Mr.. Morton is member OF my Cabinet;
him, nor on the other hand ia It to be
allowed to cause him to be singled out,
or the officers with whom he il associated
to be singled out, for attack.
AT about the same time that the lnjunc-
ton was obtained against the Atchlson.
Topeka and Santa Fe an injunction was
obtained against several other Western
railroads Subsequently it was developed
bv the Interstate Commerce Commission
that under the guise of division OF rates
unlawful rebates were given bv these rail-
roads to the International Harvester Com
pany, Just as rebate was given by the
Atchison in the case of the Colorado fuei
company Upon attention being called to
the cases by the Interstate Commerce
Commission the unlawful practise was
abandoned in the Harvester case, a II was
abandoned in this case of the Colorado fuei
company.
The two cases stand precisely on par.
No one has suggested, and as far as am
aware, no one has thought OF suggesting
that we should proceed individually against
the officers of the roads enga ged In TINS
international Harvester COMPANY analr
yet the case is exactly parallel to tins At'hi-
son. Topeka and Santa fe Case, and II suoh
action as YOU have refused to take was
Topeka and Santa FL Railroad. it would
also have to be taken in the case OF the In
ternational Harvester Company against
the officers of every railroad running west
of Chicago. There is Of course no possln!e
excuse for discriminating one case IRON
the other.
You advised me to direct the submission
of the printed evidence taken by the Inter-
state Commerce Commission lthe only
evidence before the special counsen 10
Judge Phillips. who had issued The in)unc-
ton, to see whether on this published evil
dence, in which there is not syllable dl-
rectly bearing on Mr. Morton or any one.
of his colleagues in the management oil
the road, action could be taken against any
one of them personally
Il did not take this advice, for two rea-
sons. First-If il we're not for Mr.. Morton
being in my Cabinet. neither you nor l
would dream Of following such a course
in this instance; and we could not foIlo" !,
save on condition OF also following II IN
the case Of the Harvester company and IN a !!
similar cases-which. in my Judgment
would put us in wholly untenable position.
HAD DENIAL FROM MORTON.
.Second-I have received from MIR. Mort on
a letter, OF which l enclose you a copy,
together with a copy Of my reply. In 1t
YOU will see that Mr.. Morton not only states
in the most unequivocal manner tnal ne
had no knowledge " hatever OF the 'inia"iu
practise complained OF, but also SHOWS py
the quotation Of documents issued unNer ms
direction that all such unlawful practises
were specifically forbidden by him and that
the attention Of his subordinate was re-
peatedly called to the necessity OF comply
ing with the law in this respect. men
there is thus not one shadow OF testimony
against him, and when whatever evidence
has been submitted shows explicitly that ne
is not guilty it seems to me that there is no
warrant whatever for our proceeding against
him
1.-THE course that you have followed in
dealing with all these corporation matters
has been coherent and resolute, and mas
had my heartiest approval. The aim OF the
Administration has been in the first Place
to stop the unlawful practises. We nave
not proceeded personally against any OF
the officers unless there was legal evidence
showing that their conduct had been wi!tully
of such nature as to render it our duty 10
try to punish them personally no less than
to try to put an end to the Objectionable
practses. ., 49,
Administration brought the Northern Sc.
curities suit there was much criticism OF
US for not undertaking criminal proceedings
against the principal directors III he North
ern Securities Corporation. The view OF tho
Administration at that time was that such
a proceeding would be unjust to the men
concerned and not to the advantage of the
public. Events have. think, shown this
view to be correct. In the same way, when
-