The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-12-18
MORTON AND THE SANTA FEE Review of Case by Moody and Re sevelt. ATT0aNE IS UPHELD pscial 5unsel Harmon and
 Jxe en Turned Down. Unusss- Interest Taken In the Matter Because of Fact Morton Was
 Member of the Presi-
 dents Cabinet


 Washington. Dec. 17.--Some import ant history concerning the action ot Government against the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Com pany was made public today by au- thority of President Roosevelt. It was in tho form of two letters under date of the 1Sth and 18th instant, respective ly, the one being written by Attorney General Moody and the other by the President.
 Tho letters quote court decisions and contain considerable information con- cerning the action of the President and the Attorney-G General in the Santa Fe case, particularly with reference to the work of the special committee, Messrs Harmon of Cincinnati, and Judson of St. Louis, who were employed by the Government to inquire into the facts of the case. and who subsequently, withdrew from it, because their reso- lutions as to prosecutions of the of- fcial were not adopted.
 The history of the Santa Fe case Is reviewed in the letter by Mir. Moody. and the Attorney Generals position is approved by the President in the sec ond letter.
 History of the santa Fe Case
 You direct me-" the Attorney Gen eral reports, ito furnish you with q concise history of the case against the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Rail- way Company, in which that company was charged with employing unlawful rates and practices in the transaction of coal for the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company. and s statement of the bear ing of the recent decision of Judge Phillips of the Circuit Court of the United States. Western District of Mis- souri, on tho case. especially upon the action which you heretofore have taken respecting it"
 The Attorney General recites the in- vestigation and the report of the In- terstate Commerce Commission, which EFeport sugEested the reeds practice was In violation of restraining order issued against. the railway company In March, 1902, upon a bill in equity brought by the Enited States. j The Attorney-General reported to the President that proceedings under the restraining order could not be main-' tained.
 Under ordinary conditions" the re- port continues. "the advice which gave you probably would have been regarded by you as conclusive against the undertaking of any action based upon the restraining order. But the circumstapces were extraordinary and very great public interest in the case existed aroused by the fact that Mir. Morton, a member of your Cabinet, had been vice-Pres!dent of the railway company. charged with the manage ment of the trafic during part of the time in which the practices complained of continued. I also suggested the en- ployment of special counsel of emil hence and you directed their employ ment.
 Instructions to Counsel.
 "The instructions to them. dated Feb ruary IA, last, presented two questions: First, in what manner, if any, the in- the dec'eicn of trc Supreme Court in the Missouri Pacific case against the United States; and. second. in case coal is within the scope of the injunction at all by reason of the general clause in the decree enJoining the Santa Fe Com pany from transporting any other in- terstate traffic at less than it's pub Iished rates. whether general injunc- tion to obey the law has any force or virtue in 1t, in view of parts of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the beef trust case"
 'The special counsel" the attorney general says, entertained an opinion on these two questions different from that I had expressed to you, and that opinion, by your direction, was &C., quiesced ir for the purpose of further action"
 Later the difference arose between counsel and the Attorney General as to whether any informations for con- tempt of the injunction should be filed against the managing officers of the corporation. April II, 1905. counsel held that "upon investigation of the charge of contempt, evidence might be forthcoming to show whether the man. aging officers had been guilty of con- tempt or not"
 Attorney General Moody adds:
 The nature of the evidence which mieht be expected was not indicated"
 May g. last. the Attorney General wrote the special counsel that there was no testimony against any except the minor officials and Mir. Riddle, who might claim immunity. and that as to Messrs. Ripley and Morton, president and .vice-rresident .cf the Santa Fc at that time, some evidence ought to precede au accusation of contempt of court. The letter shows the contempt proceedings brought against the com panv itself bv the presidents direction ana fudge Phillius's order on December 4 last. quashine the injunction.
 Beef Trust Decision.
 Judge PhiIlips cited in this connec- tion inc oninjon of the Supreme Court of the ITnited states in the beef trust case and held that the record fur wished no foundation for imputinR to Messrs. Ripley and Morton. president and president of the road at the tfrre any personal rt sponSihilities or all IeSed violation of the Interstate Com merce law The attorney generals let ter concludes:
 q have stated that Judge Phillips is- sued the restraining order. drawn into the ouestior bv these informations for contempt. The order was issued bv him after full argument by counsel for the United States and for the railway company. Undoubtedly, his decision in the contempt cases was inconsistent with his decision upon the oriSinal bill in equity pravine the infuretion, a de- n1urrer to which he overruIed. and sub | seduentlv issued the restraining order | Rut since his first decision the Supreme l Court had decided the cases of the Mis- | sorri Pacific Railway Company vs the | Tinted States and Swift & Co vs. the l Tinted States, and Judge Phillips re- | xarded these two decisions as fatal to | inc validity of the restraining order. l T hardly need say that in my opinion | the opiuion Of Judge Phillips is a cor | rect expression of the law, because, as ! YOU know, 1t is iu conformity with the N... IA xr-.-