The San Francisco call., 1905-06-22

w. ii. MOODY. Attorney Ienerdi.
REPLY OF THE PRESIDENT.
In letter to the President under the
date Of June 8. the case is reviewed by
the Attorney General, in which are reit-
Grated his views that proceedings for
contempt should be begun against the
offending railroad company, but not
against its officers. President Roosevelt
upholds this view in a reply under date
Of June IL, as follows:
1 have received and carefully considered
your letters of thes5 51st uit. and Sd inst. en-
tirely agree with your conclusions. IN my
opinion you would be wholly without 1ustlnca-
tion in proceeding individually against the
officers of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa re
Railroad for contempt when neither the Inter-
state Commerce Commission nor the speciai
counsel you have employed have developed
single fact of any kind beyond the holding OF
tIleir offices tending to implicdte any one VI
these officers.
One of the oliicers, Mr.. Morton, IL a
member of my Cabinet. This fact Is
not to be allowed to shield him, nor,
ON the other hand, is 1t to be allowed to
cause him to be singled out, or the
officers with whom he fs associated to
be singled out. for attack.
At about the same time that the injunction
was obtained against the Atchison Topeka and
Santa Fe, injunction was obtained against
several other Western railroads Subsequently
it was developed by the Interstate Commerce
Of rates. unlawful rebates were given by these
railroads to the International Harvester Com
pany, just as a rebate was given by the Atchi-
son, Topeka and Santa Fe in the case of the
Colorado Fuel Company. Upon attention being
called TO the case by the Interstate Commerce
Commission, the unlawful practice was aban-
doned in the case of the Colorado Fuel Com
pany. The two cases stand precisely on q
par No one has suggested and. as Ias far as s.!
that we should proceed individually against
the officers of the roads engaged In this Inter-
national Harvester Company affair: yet the
case is exactly parallel to this Atchison case,
and II such action you have refused to
take was taken against the officers OF the~At-
Gibson, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, 1t
would also have 70 be taken in the case of
the International Harvester Company against
the officers of every railroad running west of
Chicago. There is. Of course, no possible. ex-
cuse Tor discriminating one case from the
other.
You adyise me to direct the submission of
the printed evidence taken by the Interstate
Commerce Commission (the only evidence be-
fore the special counseD to Judge Phillips who
has issued the injunction, to see whether on
this evidence, in which there is not syllable
directly bearing on Mr.. Morton any one of
his colleagues In the management of the road,
action, could be taken against any one of them
personally.
d.d not take this advice for two reasons:
First, If 1t was not for Mr.. Mortons being in
OF following such a course in this instance
and we could not follow 1t save on conditin
OF ALSO IOllOWiDg IL IN the case or the Harvester
Company and in all similar cases. which in
my Judgment would put US in wholly
tenable position.
MIR. MORTON DENIES GUILT.
Second, i have received from Mr..
Morton letter, of which enclose you
a copy, together with q copy Of my
reply. In 1t you will see that Mr. Nor
ton net only states in the most un-
efafY4taI IAanner that Sh<g had NO
kno~ltdse Whatever 81 the unIaufnI
practice complained Of, but also shows
by the quotations Of documents, issued
under his direction, that all such un-s
lawful practices were specifically for
hidden by him and that the attention
of his subOrdinates was repeatediy
called to the necessity of complying
with the law I'm this respect. When
there Is not one shadow of testimony
against him and as the evidence which
has been submitted shows TINT he q.
not guilty, 1T seems to me that there
Is no warrant whatever for Our pro.
ceedfng against him.
The course that you have followed in dea,-
ing with ali the correspondent matters has
Degn @ resoiute and has my heartiest approval
Inc aim OF the administration has been in
the first place to stop unlawful practices We
nave not proceeded personally against any of
she G,ncers e unless there was legal evidence
showing that their conduct had been willfulIy
or such nature as to render IL our duty to
try TO punish them personally no less than
practices. You perhaps remember that when
the administration brought the Northern Sc
curities suit, there was much criticism of us
for not undertaking criminal proceedings
against the principal directors in the North
administration at that time was that - s,ch ,cb
a proceeding would be unjust to the men con-
cerned and not to the advantage of the pub
to be correct.
EQUAL TREATMENT rOR All.
In the same way when. a year or two ago.
injunctions were obtained against the cor
porations known popularity as the beef trust,
asana tine the ie to pro
those corporations: Since then testimony has
been offered to show that the packing com
panies have violated this Injunction and that
the violation was deliberate and willful on
the part OF number of individuals. OF the
not for me to judge. With my approval the
Department of Justice. with the assistance of
the Department of Commerce and Labor, has
for some months been endeavoring to find out
whether or not they obtain legal evidence
Of such willful and deliberate violation of
Grand Jury now sitting in Chicago finds ii,e in.
dictments against any individuals concerned in
bs snb it will be
violation of the injunction has been laid be-
fore them
any such willful and deliberate violation by
any officers of the Atchison.' Topeka and Santa
Of Chicago, of the injunction in the Colorado
case, of the injunction in the International
Harvester Company case, you will of course,
proceed as you have already proceeded in the
Chicago beef packing cases. But at present
not ouly has there been such evidence pro-
duced. but there has been no attempt to pro-
duce such evidence, and regards Mr.. Nor
ton there is seemingly conclusive testimony to
the contrary. You will not. however, take
action against any official Of the Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad which you do
not take against the official of any other
railroad under precisely similar circumstances.
In both this Colorado Fuel case and the
Harvester case direct that pro-
ceedings for contempt against the companies
be taken by the Government. Whether, as
the cases develop. proceedings against individ-
ual officers become necessary must depend in
each instance on whether testimony is obtained
showing that such Individual officer has either
by act or connivance been personally guilty
in the matter. II there arc any railroads
guilty of the practices which We have en-
Joined other railroads from following. but
which have not themselves been enjoined, pro-
ceedings should be begun to put them under
a similar restraint.
You have expressed your doubt as to whether
the injunction granted is sufficient in explicit
terms TO cover either the case of the Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe or the similar case OF
the Harvester Company / agree, however,
with your feeling that even though there is
such doubt an effort should be made to obtain
the judgment of the court on the question.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT.
MR.. MORTON'S STATEMENT.