Daily Kennebec journal., 1905-12-18
1.-The White House,

The Whlte House,
washington, d. c., Dec. Is, 1905.
"Sir:-I have received your letter of
Dec. 18th. The facts therein set forth
prove in conclusive fashion that you
We're absolutely right in the position
you have all along taken both as re-
CARDS the proceedings proposed against
the officers OF the company, including
Mr.. Paul Morton, recently a member
of my cabinet. In my letter of June
II last in reply to yours of June 5 in
which you advised the course which
has actually been taken and which has
been so signally justified by the event,
l wrote that in my judgment, as in
your own, you would have been wholly
without justification in proceeding indi-
vidually against the officers of the COM
pdny, as there was not Il particle of
evidence against them. | added that:
One of the officers, Mr.. Morton, is a
member of my cabinet. This fact is not
to be allowed to shield him. nor on the
other hand is it to be allowed to cause
him to be singled out. or the officers
with whom he associates to be singled
out for attack
Il directed You to proceed against
the company, and of course to proceed
against any Individual officer. if any
testimony was produced showing that
he had been personally guilty either by
act or connivance; stating that /
agreed with the doubt you had express
ed as to whether there was good ground
for proceeding even against the COM
panie:; but that | also agreed with you
also that we should try to obtain the
judgment of the court on the question
as to whether the injunction was suffi-
cient and whether therefore there was
any ground for action whatever The
result shows that you were entirely
right in your doubt whether the in
junction was sufficient to cover the
case.
II am much pleased with the re-
marks quoted by you in which Judge
Phillips speaks Of the attacks made on
Mr.. Paul Morton. Your original advice
to me was to direct thar the evidence
before the special counsel who had ad-
vised action against these and other
officials individually should be submit
ted to Judge Phillips. who had issued
the injunction, to see whether action
could be taken against any of them
personally. | refused to take this ac-
ton. Judge Phillips (who had before
him all the evidence which was before
the special counscD in his decision cx-
dctly covers the point which would
have been raised if had followed yollr
advice. He says: This instance has
ted considerable public attention
because of the sensational association
of the names of Paul Morton
tn,n vice president Of the de-
fendant company. with the transaction.
The record in the case. however,
inc!uding the) evidence taken before
the Interstate commerce commission
fails to furnish any foundation for i'm
putting to those gentlemen any person.
al responsibility for the alleged viola
ton OF the interstate commerce law
THE decision of the court therefore
Is not only that you We're absolutely
right in the advice you gave me as to
the corporation, but Furthermore, and
explicitly, that there was no possible
ground for action against Mr. Morton.
No action in addition to that which yo,,
proposed could properly have been
taken The course actually taken 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.
Sincerely yours,
THEODORE ROOSEVELT."