Bisbee daily review., 1905-07-06
rAE PRESIDENT 5LuNDERs.

FsfE PRESIDENT 5LUNDERS.
 To say that the president has blun
 EsCed ia the Santa Fe case is to ex- gEess Hlt mildly what might with acooriety be expressed more harshly. Tx. another page will be found a re- s5Ssv of the facts in the case. The sr1Enant attorneys selected by the ad- zunistfsriUr to investigate the case, ZessrA Harmon and Judson, reported "a favor of bringing contempt proceed sgs against the officials of the Santa za EzSaro2d for viGlEs4a an injunc- 1A1zs Secretary Morton as one of zas. oEakzIs of the Santa Fe was in- zldss among the officers to be prose sE4ed. Attorney General Moody, with 7fesSdenx Roosevelts approval. re- nzaG to. follow the recommendation ls..r 11isssssrs. Harmon and Judson. To isGtifg the failure to prosecute the Szzea f'e officials the president takes K position which, if adhered to. will vsrys 11ch embarass the prosecution 1S. Tsilrna,is and trust officials. First HsA, distinguishes between corpora -sIns and It's, officers and insists that 4 b 1o& only necessary to show that rlsa corporation has violated the law asE aN4t the responsible officials of 1ks corporation must be shown to be 7d1sy- The governments special at azzneys pointed out that the evidence zzs. in the keeping of the company s=17 ceEtai be. brought oGt best on zaEs ssT the president replies that Ne guilt must be filed in advance on sszcte7 particular officer. And then he yzrceeeas to say than in the case of lSs= aasktrrst law he has not attempt sss ID punish the heads of the corpo- zsozs violating the law. but has sim Sy sadeavored to stop the violations. A1 aGites the merger case and the aaaa trust case to show that he did auGas 17uzecute officials. Yes, and he lzz5e oAes subjected to just criticism zsr his failure to enforce the criminal lEss- in this case. Justice Holmes s46s dissenting opinion in the mer- sET cases pointed that the officials asG1sd be prosecuted criminally if the zarger was unlawful The president ssaess not hesitate to punish petty ,zaginals; why should he be so ten ssaz- Eith large ones? When a man .zzEs g gallon of whiskey without sAsssse the president does not enjoin xzu from doing so any moro. he prose ,sz1ss him and makes him feel the rszzzsfy5 of the. law; why does he hesi s1zR. % prosecute the big men wkc srzaapIe upon the statutes and the arzsrs ot the courts? The president .szs used a good deal of high sound insr language about the enforcement aE the law, and no one doubts thai sas means ft when he applies tho I9uEuagep to. small offenders. but doe sze nezm | when the offenders ar' EEzunfnent and when millions instea' gz nxndreds are involved2 He seem iargAoed to so amend the command zass.s. as to make t read: Thou shal zaE1s- .scealr-on a small scale
 Tse president errs when he just Ez a refusal to prosecute the Sant zse umcials because the other corpo -zsa officials have escaped punish 71-zt He cites the case of the Hal vzsszsa- must, but why has he no 7E-uzeeuted that trust if it is guilty ER Ia aot guilty. then the Illustratio zszes it's force: if it is guilty it ough S ae. uruaished. It is absurd to hrs ssrertdaE it's violations and then us r3e immunity granted to it as a rel auz ss- granting immunity to tn szz.kA Fe. But the president. appai sszsy conscious that his excuses ar
 zzxR. piles one upon another in
 sz<ssgork to fortify his position. T znra ansS Rays down dangerous Dril ssas xhen he says that after pro- zar afs corporation guilty the goTeri zsenk must not prosecute until
 zErsss guilty knowledge in the od cssrsl aa charge: and he not only sul
 5iEs g palpably absurd defense whe
 nlEzds failure to prosecute snotl ax aaE 6e singles Secretary Aorto ene Es<7 9ulogy and declares that
 n Bss g1iag to prosecute corporal ,z.z.z. na vor,Id not begin with hin
 zz, presidents settlement bears ev snarr of being prepared for the sol