The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-06-22
Nh. MORTON IS 0. K.
CONTINUED from Page one3

Continued from Page One)
1--WE beg to say that we have made
informal Investigations which confirm
our previous reports. We can go no
further without the use of process to
TO secure formal evidence and other
proof and therefore again recommend
contempt proceedings and the taking
OF testimony before the master ap-
pointed for that purpose in the case
pending in the United States circuit
court in Kansas City.
Law Was Violated.
I'VE have no doubt that the laws
have been violated by the traffic Of
ncers of the Atchison, Topeka ana
santa re railroad company and those
OF the colorado Fuel and Iron COM
pany- The former have by the same
acts violated the injunction in that
case The formal proof required TO
punish them for contempt of court
and alOs criminally if it shall be
thought best to do that too, can be
mad only by judicial process This
IS ready to our hands in the above
named case. The proof elected before
the master Will also be available for
criminal proceedings q gainst the Colo
rado tuel and Iron company and its
officers and agents.
las we have said, we can go no
further and need go no further, with
informal Investigation We are CON
WINGED that the facts are as we have
stated them and it only remains to put
the proof in legal form.
We beg, therefore, that this be
considered our final report as to Sha
recommendations for which we are
asked and await your further instruc-
tons"
In letter dated May 9. the attor-
ney general disapproved of contempt
proceedings as suggested by special
counsel The letter follows:
Gentlemen: I have considered with
lhe utmost care your letter of April II ..
1t has been submitted to the presi-
cent and considered by him. I think
j ought to state to you that in trans
hitting your letter to the president
said:
I concur in much that is said in
this letter. / have not, however, as
yet been able to overcome my repug-
nance to proceeding individually against
me oIlcers OF the railroad company
for contempt Of the injunction without
some evidence with respect to every
individual proceeded against that he
had some culpable connection with
the contempt of court
An Embarrassing Position.
IN passing upon your recommends
lions have not been unmindfuI of the
great weight which is added to them
by your personal and professional stand
ing Nor have I forgotten that you were
invited to exercise the broadest discre-
ton as to persons as we'll as corpora
t1ons in dealing with the subject COM
United TO you by this department.
J.
sponslbility by substituting the discre-
ton of others for my own. If proceed
lngS are taken against the corporation
or individuals they must. be taken in
my name, and, what is infinitely more
important, with the authority that be-
longs to the office which, for the time
being, hold. L am, therefore, brought
face TO face with my own personal re-
sponsibility and must discharge it under
the embarl aSSlDg circumstances that
one of the persons affected by my de-
cision is q colleague in the perform
anCe of public duty. 1t is not easy to
determine with accuracy what effect
such q circumstance has upon the eX-
ercise of judgment. can only say that
7 have endeavored to see that it should
have no effect, one way or the other.
The advice which you give is that an
application should be made for an at
tachment for contempt of the injunction
against the railroad company and its
managing officers. There is no differ
ence between us as to proceeding
against the corporal ton itself If the
transactions set forth in the report of
the interstate commerce commission in
regard to the departure from the pub
lshed rates by the AtchisOn, Topeka &
Santa Fe railway system in favor of
the Colorado Fuel and Iron company
are within the terms of the injunction,
the evidence before the commission
shows with sufficient clearness that
that Injunction has been violated and
contempt of court.
But you go further and recommend
proceedings against the managing Off
GERS Of that company including pre-
sumably the president, the vice presi-
dent in charge of teh traffic department.
the geneaFl freight and traffic manager.
and other officers whose duties relate
to the transportation of freight. saying:
We are clearly of opinion that the
report of the commission, with the veri-
fed COPY of the testimony before the
commission. would be a sufficient basis
for an attachment in contempt against
the corporation and its managing off
GERS
Refuses to Proceed Against Morton.
Il have examined this report and a
transcript of the testimony taken by
the commission. I do not find any tes-
timOny relating to the conduct of any
except minor officials ana Mr. Biddle
who may claim to have obtained i'm
munity by testifying fully before the
commission. For instance, to be specific
there is not a syllable of testimony that
Mr.. Ripley, the president of the road,
or Mr.. Morton, then one of its vice pres
identS, had any connection whatever
with the departure from the published
rates in favor of the Colorado Fuel and
Iron company, or that they knew or
suspected that transportation was fur
nished to this company in any manner
different from that prescribed by the
open and published rate. Neither of
these officials were in the remotest way
referred to in the testimony or in the
report of the commission. Surely. it
would not be contended that upon this
state of sacts these officials were sub
ject to a penalty for contempt of court.
Nor have understood that it has been
your opinion that upon such a state of
facts any individuals would be liable
to punishment for contempt. Your view.
as 7 have understood it, has been that
as corporations must always act
through their officers and agents, there
is a presumption that those who are
charged with the management of their
affairs are responsible for the conduct
OF corporation which violates an in
Fnnts an accusation for contempt