The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-12-18

| I. l old of thcse proceedings, and at all times. from then until now, believed' by me to be sound. In any event the de cision is final because the Government has no appeal upon a question of this kind"
 Letter of Rooseveit.
 The Presidents; letter to the attor- ney general follows:
 The White House,
 washington, Dec$ 15.
 'Sir--I have received your letter of December 15. Tho facts therein set forth prove in conclusive fashion that you were absolutely right in the posi- tion you have all along taken, both as regards the proceedings proposed against the officers of the company. in cluding Mir Paul Morton. recently a member of my cabinet. In my letter of June i2 last. in reply to yours of June B., In which you advised the course which has actually been taken and which has been so signally Justified by the event, I wrote you that in my Judgment. as in your own, you would have been wholly without Justification in proceeding individually against the omcers Of the comnanv, as there was not particle of evidence against them
 T added that One of the of5Bcers Mr Morton. Is member of my cabinet This fact is not to he allowed to shield him. nor, on the other hand is to he aI- lowed to cause him to he singled out or the officers with whom be Is associ- atsd. to be singled out Tor. attack
 directed you. to proceed against the company and Of course to proceed against any individ,ai officer if any testimony was produced. Showing that ne had been personally Euilty either by act or connivance: stating that I d agreed With the doubt you had expressed as to whether there was good grounds Tor proceedinEs even against the com we try to obtain judgment of the court on the question as to whether the injunction was sufficient. whether therefore there was any ground for action whatever
 Mir. Moody Upherd.
 ine result shows that you were en- tirely right in your doubt whether the injunction was sufficient to cover the case l am much pleased with the remarks quoted by you iri which Judge Phillips speaks of the attacks made upon MT Paul Mortofs Your original advice to me was to direct that the evidence before the special counsel. and other officials individually, should be submitted to Judge Phillips, who had issued the injunction, to see whether action could be taken against any of them personally.
 T refused to take this action, Judge Phillips (who had before him all the evidence which was before the special counseD, in his decision exactly covers the point which would have been raised if had followed your advice. He says:
 "srhis instance has attracted con- siderable public attention because of the sensational association of the names of Paul Morton, then vice pres ident of the defendant company, with the transaction. The record in the case, however, ffnciuding the evidence taken before the interstate commerce commission,. fails 10 furnish any foun- dation for imputing to these gentle men any pefsef4sF Sesp9nsibtiitg for the alleged violation of the interstate Commerce law
 The decision of the court, therefore. is not only that you were absolutely right, in the advice you gave me as to the corporation, but furthermore and explicitly that there was no possible grounds for action against Mir. Nor ton. No action in addition to that which was absolutely proper; and the decision of the court and the opinion of the judge above quoted, show that to have taken the course proposed by the special counsel would have been unjust.
 Yours truly,
 Theodore Roosevelt"