The Birmingham age-herald., 1905-12-18
HISTORY ABOUT SANITY FEE
 CASE IS MADE PUBLIC
(continued from First Pape)


 sued the restraining order, drawn into the question by these informations for con tempt. The order was issued by him after full argument by counsel for the United States and for the railway company. Un- doubtedly his decision in the contempt cases was inconsistent with his decision upon the original bill in equity, praying the injunction, a demurrer to which he overruled, subsequently, issuing the re- straining order. But since his first decision the supreme court had decided the cases of the Missouri Pacific Railroad company vs. the United States and Judge Phil lips regarded the decision as fatal to the validity of the restraining order. I hard ly need say that in my opinion, the opin- ion of Judge Phillips Is a correct express sion of the law, because as you know 1t is in conformity with the advice given to you at the very threshold of these pro ceedings, and at all times, from then un- til now. believed by me to be sound. In any event the decision Is final because the government has no appeal upon a question of this kind.''
 Rooseve1t's Letter.
 The Presidents letter to the Attorney General follows:
 "The White House,
 Washington, Dec. 15, 190b.
 "Slr-I have received your letter of De- cember 13. The facts therein set forth prove In conclusive fashion that you were absolutely right in the position you have all along taken, both as regards the pro ceedings proposed against the officers of the company, including MT Paul Morton, recently a member of my cabinet In my letter of June 12 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 you that in my judgment. as in your own, you would have been wholly without justification in proceeding individually against the officers of the company as there was not a particle of evidence against them I added that:
 One of the officers, MT. Morton, is a member of my cabinet. This fact is not to be allowed to shield him, nor on the other hand is to be allowed to cause his to be singled out, or to the officers with whom he is associated to be singled out for attack
 Directed to Proceed. "I 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 conn vance; stating that I agreed with the doubt you had expressed as to whether there was good ground for proceeding even against the companies. but that I also agreed with you that we try to ob- tain the judgment of the court on the question as to whether the injunction was sufficient. and whether. therefore, there was any ground of action whatever. The ! result shows that you were entirely right in your doubt whether the injunction was sufficient to cover the case l am much pleased with the remarks quoted by you in which Judge Phillips speaks of the attacks made on MT. Paul Morton. Your original advice to me was to direct that the evidence before the special counsel. who had advised action against these and other officials individually should be sub mitted to Judge Phillips, who had issued the injunction to see whether action could be taken against any of them personally. I refused to take this action. Judge Phil lpps (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 l had fol- | lowed your advice He says:
 Part of Declslon.
 "'This instance has attracted consid- erable public attention because of the sensational association of the names Of Paul Morton then vice president of the defendant company with the transaction. The record in the case. however, - dneluding the evidence taken before the interstate commerce commission) | fails to furnish any foundation for imputing to these gentle men any personal responsibility for the alleged violation of the interstate com merce law
 "The decision of the court, therefore, is not only that you were absolutely right in tho advice you gave me as to the corporation but furthermore and expli- citly stated that there was no possible ground for an action against Mir Morton. No action in addition to that which you 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 pro- posed by the special counsel would have been unjust Yours truly,
 THEODORE ROOSEVELT"