Arizona republican., 1905-06-22

forth in the report of the inter sta.e ..-c mnierce commission in regard 10 Ia parture r.. cIn the published rates by -the Ut. l.son. Topeka and SanId Fe railway system in favor of the CoiD- rado F'ue' G Iron company are within the terms of the injunction, the evil dence before the commission shows with sufficient clearness that the in- junction has been violated and the railroad company has been guilty of contempt of court.
 But you go further and recommend proceedings against the managing of- ficers of that company, including pre- sumably the president. and vice pres ident in charge of the traffic depart ment, the general freight and traffic manager. and other officers whose du-
 ties relate to the transportation of the freight.
 ''I have examined this report and a , transcript of the testimony taken by
 the commission. I do not find any tes-
 timony relating to the conduct of any except minor off fcials and MT. Riddle, who may claim tto have obtained inn
 nunity by testifying fully before the commission.
 After great consideration I am of
 the opinion that some evidence ought to precede the accusation and that an accusation so grave in it's character ought not to be made unless there, ap-
 pears before it is made, some evidence in support of it. I have reached the
 conclusion that I ought not to make application for an attachment for con- | tempt against the officers of the rail way company
 The letter in reply to this. contains the resignationsJ of Messrs. Harmon
 and Judson. The resignations were accepted by the attorney general in a letter to counsel dated June 13. In Q letter to the president under date of June 3. the case is reviewed. by the attorney general in which is reiterated
 his views that the proceedings for contempt should be begun against the l offending railroad company but not ! against it's officers.
 President Roosevelt upholds this
 view in a reply under date of June F.
 as follows:
 ! 'fWhite House, Washington. June F. 1905. 'I have received and carefully con
 sidered your letters of the 31st ulto land 3rd inst. entirely agree with your conclusions. In my opinion you would be wholly without justification in pro- ceeding individually against the off,
 cers of the Atchison. Topeka and Santa
 F'e railroad for contempt when neither
 the interstate commerce commission nor the special counsel you have em- ployed have developed\ single fact
 of any kind beyond the holding of their | offices tending to duplicate any one of these officers. One of the officers, | n7r fr .oF
 ct. This fact is not to be allowed to shield him, nor on, the other hand is it 10 be allowed to caluse him to be sing | led out. or the officers with whom he l is associated to be singled out, for at tack.
 ''You advise me to direct the submis-
 sion of the printed evidence taken by
 the interstate commerce commission | Cthe only evidence gefore the special lcounseD to Judge Phillips who had is
 sued the injunction to see whether on
 this published evidence in which there
 is not a syllable directly bearing on MT. Morton or any one of his colleagues in
 the manageINe of the road, action could be taken against any one of them | personally.
 II did not take this advice for two
 reasons. First if it was not for Nor
 ton being in my cabinet, neither you
 nor 1 would dream of following such
 course in this instance and we could not follow it save on the condition of also following it in the case of the har- yester company and in all similar
 cases-which in my judgment awOuld
 put us in a wholly untenable position. | "Second-I have received from MT. Morton a letter. of which ! enclose you
 a copy, together with a copy of my re- | ply. In it you will see that MT. Morton
 not only states in the most unequivOcal
 maner that he had no knowledge what ever of the unlawful practice complain
 ed of, but also shows by the quota toned documents issued under his di-
 rection. that all such unlawful practices | were specifically forbidden by him. and that the attention of his subordinates
 was repeatedly called to the necessity
 of complying with the law in this re- spect.~
 l When there is not one shadow Of testimony against him, and when whatever evidence has been submitted 1 shows explicitly that he.is not guilty,
 il seems to me that theGe is no war rant whatever for proceeding against him.