The sun., 1905-12-18
PAUL MORTON EXONERATED.
CLEAN BILL FROM PRESIDENT
AND ATTORNET-GENERAL
They Agree That There Was No "arrane
for the Prosecution OF Mr.. Morton In
Connection with the Giving OF He'
bates by the Santa Te Railroad System
Special Counsel Had Different Opinion


Special Counsel Had Different Opinion
WARRINGTON, Dec. 1.-THE Adrninstra-
ton made public to-day some interesting
correspondence, giving detailed exP'aha-
ton of the reasons for the failure OF the
Government to prosecute ofhcers OF me
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Te Railroad
system, including Paul Morton formerly
Secretary Of the Navy in Mr.. RooseVeltH
Cabinet and now head OF the Equtdo'e
Life Assurance Society, on charges growing
ont of alleged violations of the Elkins anti
rebate law. The correspondence consists
of two letters, one from Attorney-General
! Moody to President Roosevelt and the other
the Presidents response. in which ne ap-
proyes Mr. Moody's decision that there was
no warrant for prosecution OF Mr. Norton
A resolution was introduced in the Senate
Yesterday by Senator Tilman OF SCUM
| Carolina, and was adopted, calling for
statement of the Administration action In
the Atchison anti-rebate case, but there ~
no connection between this resolution anu
the Presidents direction to the Attorney
General to give the history of the case, Tor
Mr.. Moodys statement in response to the
Presidents direction, bears date OF Decem-
ber IA and was acknowledged by the Presi-
dent on December ID
The Attorney-Gehera's letter to the
President follows
WAsHlNGroN. d. C., Dec i3.
SIR, You direcf me 10 furnish you with
a concise history of the case against lhs
Atchison Topeka and Santa fe RAILWAY
Company in whSh that company was charged
with unlawful rates and practices in the
TRANSFORMATION of coal for the Colorado fue'
and iron Company. and statement OF the
bearing of the recent decision OF Judge
| Phillips OF the Circuit Court oi lhe ,hite"
States for the Western District OF MISSOURI
upon he case. and especially upon the actioh
which YOU have heretofore taken respectins'' w.
In compliance with your direction nav"
The honor 10 submit tho following
The Interstate Commerce Commission in-
,ostieatod the subject, and on February >.
1905. delivered report and opinion TO tnis
Department in substance tndlns IhaI I'll"
railway company from august, lao-, W
December 1904 had unlavfully transported
coal for the fuel company at less than tne
, published rates. The report OF the commits
sion suggested that this practice was III
, violation Of restraining order issued asa'hs'
F., , the railway company in March, 1902, upon
bill in equity brought by the tniteo otates
3 After careful investigation OF the case L
Y informed YOU that in my opinion proceedings
: under the restraining order could not oe
D maintained for two reasons:
. First. because the restraining order re-
i ferred to, for the reason that 1t had oeen
%. issued before the passage of the Elkihs ac',
which for the first time gave au'hornv 10 'ne
courts TO issue such an order. was void
Second. because, II the court had au-
thority to issue restraining order in case
OF this kind the order actually Issued was
broader than warranted by the bill upon
+ which il was founded and TO that extent
unauthorized.
AZ. kni oil
s ING Of rebates in the transportation OF pack
g ing house products dressed meats and gram.
and ON many other OF the principal COM
RI moditcs constituting the bulk OF raiiros"
tralyic between the states and comprising IN"
| ordinary necessities of life.
In accordance with the prayer OF the bl
a restraining order had been issued not only
prohibiting n departure from the rates IN
=. the TRANSPORTATION Of packing house proc
nets dressed meats and grain, but as vel
n departure from the rates in the Transports
II ton Of any other commodities in interstate
e commerce. II was this general restrlctiol
l. beyond the specific complaint set forth III
Ia the bill that, in my opinion. was unauthot'
n izcd AS a departure from Inc published
q rates in the transportation of coal was no
y SCI forth in the bill, II was prohlhlteo pN
the general terms of the restraining oroer
- and | concluded that such departure IRON
I, the published rates could not be successfully
~ tempt of the Injunction.
- J'ndcr ordinary conditions the advice whcl
'o | gave YOU probably would have been re
gardcd by you as conclusive against Ih
n undertaking of any action based upon tl'
- restraining order, But the circumstance
et were extraordinary and very great puoii
interest in the case existed. aroused by IN
fact that Mr.. Morton a member OF you
II cabinet had been vice president OF the rail
n wav company, charged with the management
th of the traffic during a part OF the time u
which the practices complained OF continued
n / therefore suggested the employment o
D special counsel OF cminence ana you direc'e
le their employment
In the letter OF instructions. dated Februar
r, IL, 1905. given to them, the two question
I'd upon which | had given yon my opinion Wer
brought 70 their attention in the foilowln
= words.
he Il will send YOU in few days a copy q
the pleadlngs and Injunction OF the Inite
ne States Circuit Court for the Western District c
Missouri in tho case of the United Sta',
VS. the Atchson Topeka and Santa Fe Rai
". way Company, referred to in the last para
. graph in the commission $ report ana oplnioi
~ You will observe that this case was institute
in the name Of the United States, ana prlo
., 10 the passage of the Elkins act giving e'
' press statutory authority for such proceeo
W inrs Therefore in what manner. IT any
~ the Injunction in this case was affected n
-, the decision of the Supreme Court IN n
Io somew hat similar case OF the Missouri Pacif
IN Railway Company VS., the United Stat'
,is Oas L. s.. @1O Is a question which will presei
se itself in CONSIDERING whether the Santa
company has violated the injunction.
ad 1t will also be noticed that coal is not on
tie of the articles which the Santa F' compan
WAS specially cnioined from Transporting +
less than its published rates, II, therefor
coal is within the scope OF the injunciion :
. all il must be by reason OF tine general Claus
u" in the decree cnioininG tho Santa re iro
Transporting any other interstate tram
in at less than it's published rates; and whcth'
ad this general Injunction 10 obey the law ht
cd any force or virtue in IT in view OF parts Z
Wv the recent decision OF the supreme Court
'u' the beef trust case Ia marked copy ol whic
~. | encoscl, is another question 30 bo solved
me The special counsel entertained an opn'
me- upon these two questions different iro
ias that had expressed 10 yon, and that opno
i9 nv your direction. was nCQui"Socd IN Tor I
Nv Nv purposc of further action. Later, howove
rs as appears by q statement of correspondent
made public by you on june %, 1905. "A d
Ev ference arose between counsel aud mo
10 whether nm information for conem