The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-06-23

we are now confronted are corporate
IN name, but individual in fact. Guilt
q s always personal. So long as officials
can side behind their corporations, No
remedy can be effective. When the
government searches out the guilty
men and makes corporate wrong doing !,
mean personal punishment and dis !
honor, the laws will be obeyed."
Inc designations We're accepted by
the attorney general in a letter to the |
counsel dated June -. In this letter
MI Moody a V the evidence in hand
was insufficient for the purposes of the
department of justice.
4 REVIEW OF THE CASE.
IN a letter to the President, under
date of June 3, the case is reviewed by
the attorney general. He reiterates his
views nat proceedings for contempt
should be begun against the offending
railroad company, but not against its
officers.
President Roosevelt upholds this
view III d reply under date of June l.,
as follows:
in my opinion you would be wholly
without justification III proceeding ill
dividually against the officers of the
AtchisOn, Topeka and Santa Fe rail
way for contempt when neither the in
ter-State commission nor
the special counsel you have employed
have developed a single fact of any
kind beyond the holding Of their Of
fees tending to implicate any one of
these officers. One of the officers, Mr..
Morton is Il member of my cabinet.
This fact is not to be allowed to shield
him, nor OF the other hand is it to be
allowed cause him to be singled out.
TOT the officers with whom he is asso-
GATED to be singled out, tor for attack.
At about the same time that the
injunction was obtained against the
AtchisOn, Topeka and Santa Fe, an i'll
junction was obtained against several
ether western railroads. Subsequently
it was developed by the Interstate
Commerce Commission, that under the
guise of a division of rates, unlawful
rebates were given by these railroads
to the international Harvester Com
pany, just as Il rebate was given by
the -Atchison in the case Of the ColOra-
do Fuel Company. Upon attention be-
u ing called to the cases by the inter
aEtate Commerce Commission. the un-
lawful practice was abandoned in this
case Of the Colorado Fuel Company.
The two cases stand precisely on a
par. No one has suggested, and as fal
as I am aware, no one has thought OF
suggesting. that we should proceed in
dividuaIly against the commissioners
Of the road engaged in this lnterna
tiOnal Harvester Company affair; ye
til cease is exactly parallel to this At
Gibson, Topeka and Santa Fe case ant
if such action as you have refused L
take was taken against the officers o
qhe Atchison, Topeka and Santa F.
1 railroad it Wouid +alse haEe~f6Qbe takes
in the case of the International HaE
} vester Company agains. the officers o
every railroad running west OIL On
caeo. There is, of course, no pOssibl
excuse for discriminating n cas-
from the other. You advised me to d
rect the submission Of the printed eVl
dence taken by the Interstate O
merce Commission (he only evidenc
before the special COUNSEL to Judg
Phillips, who had issued the injunction
to see whether on this published evl
dpnce. in which there is not a syllahl
directly bearing on Mr.. Morton or an
one of his colleagues in the manage
ment of the road, action could o
taken against any one OF them pc
s0naIly. | did not take this advice IL
two reasons. First, if it were not IL
Mr.. MOrton's being in my cabme
neither Won nor [ could dream OF TO
lowing such a course in this instance
and we could not follow it save on col
ditiOn of also following 1t IN the caS
of the Harvester Company and IN a
similar cases-vhich, in my Judgmeh
would put US in Il wholly untenap
position. Second, have received Ito
Mr.. Morton a letter, of which enclo'
YOU a copy. together with Il copy OF Ii
renIv, In it YOU will see that Mr.. Mo
ton not only states in the most uh
0uivOcal manner that he a ]
knoUIedoe whatever of the unlaWl
p1actice complained of, i also snow
[ h, the quotation of documents ISSUE
nnder his direction, that all such u
lawful practices were specifically 10
hidden nv him and that the attentl'
of his subOrdinateS was repeateu
called TO the necessity of complyI
with the law in this respect. WI
there is thus not one shadow OF tes
mOny against him, II when WhdIe'
evidence has been submitted SHOWS {
plicitly that he is not guilty, 1t sec
+o me that there is no warrant VIM
ever for our proceeding against Ill
s.The course that you have follow
in 3aalin~ with all these cOrpOratl
matters has been coherent n re
Iufe, and has had my heartiest appr''
n. The aim of the administration l.
Eeen in the first place to stop the |
lawful practices. We nave not p
ceeded personally against any OIL
officers unless there was legal eNiuel
showing that their undue nad VI
wilfully of such a nature as 20 REM
il our duty to try to PUNISH tfelh =
o,,JIx- no loss than f0 FRY To put
on dto the Objectionable pract1c
Won. perhaps, remember that when
administration brought the NOrtn'
Securities suit there vas much CT
cism of us for o undertaking cri
nal proceedings against the prlncl
directors in the Northern Securl'
CornoratiOn. The view of the adm