The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-12-18
guessed in for the purpose of further

quiesced in for the purpose Of further
action"
Later the difference arose between
counsel and the attorney general as to
whether an information for contempt
of the injunction should be filed against
the managing officers of the corpora
ton. On April II, 1905, counsel held
that upon investigation Of the charge
coming to show whether the managing
officers had been guilty of contempt or
not
Attorney General Moody adds:
'"The nature of the evidence which
might be expected was not Indicated"
On May 10 last, the attorney general
wrote the specialcounsel that there was
no testimony against any except the
minor officials and Mr.. Biddle, who
might claim immunity, and that as to
MessTs. Ripley and Morton, president
and vice president of the Santa Fe at
the time some evidence ought to pre-
cede an accusation IF contempt of court.
Judge PHI Decision. A
The letter reviews the contempt pro-
ceedings brought against the company
itself by the presidents direction and
Judge Philips order on December 4,
last. quashing the informations. Judge
Philips cited in this connection the
opinion of the supreme court of the
United States in the ''beef trust" case,
anu ttClQ lIlcl Lie I6GOIu 4uIuASUCu liO
foundation for imputing to Messrs. Rip
ley and Morton, president and vice pres
ident of the road al the time, any per-
sonal responsibility for the alleged vio-
lation of the interstate commerce law.
The attorney generals letter concludes:
Il have stated that Judge Philips is
sued the restraining order drawn into
the question by these informati9ns for
contempt. The order was issued by him
after full argument by counsel for the
United States and for the railway COM
pany. Undoubtedly his decision in the
contempt cases was inconsistent with
his decision upon the original bill in
equity praying the injunction, a de-
murrer to which he overruIed, subse-
Quently issuing the restraining order.
But since his first decision the supreme
court had decided the cases of the Mis-
souri, Pacific Railway company VS. the
United States and Swift vs.. the United
States, and Judge Philips regarded
these two decisions as fatal to the va
lidity of the restraining order I hardly
need say that in my opinion the decision
of Judge Philips is a correct expression
of the law, because as you know, it is
in conformity with the advice given to
you at the very threshold of these pro-
ceedings, and at all times, from then
until now, believed by me to be sound.
In any event the decision is final be-
cause the government has no appeal
upon a question of this kind
Presidents Letter.
The presidents letter to the attor-
'eThe White House.
Washington, Dec. Is, 1905.
Sir have received your letter of
December 13- The facts therein set
forth prove in conclusive fashion that
you were absolutely right in the posi-
ton you have all along taken both as
regards the proceedings proposed
against the officers of the company
including Mr.. Paul Morton, recently a
member of my cabinet. In my letter
of June 2, last, in reply to yours OF
June 5, in which you advised the
course which has actually been taken
and which has been so s1gnally Justl-
fed by the event, I wrote you that in
my Judgment as in your own, you
would have been wholly without JUS
tification in proceeding individually
against the officers of the company, as
there was not particle OF evidence
| against them. I added that one OF
the officers. Mr.. Morton, is member
of my cabinet This fact is not to be
allowed to Shield him. nor on the 9th
er hand is it to be allowed to cause
him to be singled out, or the officers
with whom he associated to be singled
I directed you to proceed against
! the company and of course to proceed
/ against any individual oH1cer II any
testimony was produced showing Ina1
he had been personally guilty either by
! act or connivance: stating that agreed
with the doubt you had expressed as to
whether there was good ground for -,ro-
+ ceeding even against the companies but
that I also agreed with you that we
should try to obtain the judgment OF
j 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 il
/ vour doubt whether the Injunction was
I SUFFICIENT to cover the case. I am much
1 pleased with the remarks quoted by you
/ in which Judge Philips speaks of the
attacks made on Mr.. Paul Morton / oul
+ 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