The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-06-22


When there Is thus not one shadow OF tes-
tImony against him. and when whatever
evidence has been submitted. shows explicitly
that no Is not guilty. II seems TO me that
there Ia no warrant whatever Tor our pro-
cc6dng against him.
Aim Of Administration.
..The course that you have followed in
dealing with all these corporation matters
has been coherent and resoiute md has
had my heartIcst approval. Tho aim Of the
to stop the unlawful practices. We have
not proceeded personally against any Of the
officers unless there was legal evidence
showing that their conduct had been vii
duty TO try to punish them personally no
less than TO try to put enc 10 the objection-
able practices. You. perhaps, remember
Northern Securities suit there was much
criticism OF us for not undertaking criminal
proceedings against the principal directors
! In tho Northern Securities corporation.
1.-THE view. OF the administration at that
time was that such n proceeding would be
unjust to the: men concerned ana not 20 me
advantage OF the public. Events have,
think shown this View to be correct. In the
same way. when a year or two ago ln1unc
tons were obtained against the corporations
known popnlarly as the Beef Trust, no
effort was made at the time TO proceed
personally against the individuals In those :
corporations. Since then testimony has
been offered us to show that tho packing
companies
that the violation was deliberate and wilfuil ]
an the part OF a number OF individuas. ot
the weight and sufficiency OF this evidence
1t It not for me to Judge: WIN Tx up.
assistance OF the Department OF Commerce
and Labor. has for some months been on
deavoring 10 find out whether or not ,they
can obtain legal evidence Of such wilfuilS
and deliberate violation OF tho Injunction
BY any Individual. II the grand Jury now
sitting in Chicago. find indictments against
any individuals connected with me pae ,hss
Judgment such legal evidence OF the viola
ton OF the Injunction has been laid before
them. II you atlany time get Legal sl,,,o eyi
violation by any officer OF the Atchlson,
Topeka and Sante Fe, Or any other rail-
road running west of chicago OF Inc m
Junction in the international Harvester
as you have already proceeded IN the
Chicago beef packing cases But, at pres
'ent, not only has there been no such cyl
dence produced, but there has been no at
tempt 10 produce such evidence and as re-
CARDS to Mr.. Morton. there ia seemingly
conclusive testimony to the contrary. You
oficlal OF the Atchison, Topeka, and sante
Fee Railroad, which you do not take against
the official OF any other railroad under
precisely similar circumstances,
TIN both this Colorado Fuel case and IN
the international Harvester case I dlrec.
that proceedings for contempt against the
: companies be taken py Inc government.
whether, az the cases develop. proceedings
against Individual officers become necessary,
must depend, In each instance upon whether
testimony Is obtained. showing that sueh
indlydual officer has either by act or con-
mivance been personally guilty in the mat
ter. II there are any railroads guilty OF
the practice which we have enJoined otner
railroads from following but which have
not themselves been enjoIned proceedings
should BIO begun to put them under SINH
4 lar restraint. II
whether the Injunction granted Is insufi-
clentiy explicit terms to cover either the
case OF the Atchison. Topeka and sante re
y or the similar case OF the International
Harvester Company. agree, however,
with your feelings that even though there
is such doubt an effort should be made to
obtain the judgment OF the court on the
question.
Sincerely yours. :, -, :, J,
J, ''THEODORE ROOSEVELT
''Hon, Williams II. Moody. Attorney
d- I. aparol 3