The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-11-13
Hartman Files His Brief i'm the
U. s. Court
Setting Forth Why He Refused
to Answer Questions.
WERE IRRELEVANT.
Did Not Relate to Interstate
Commerce, He Says.
Governments Brief in the Ca Sc
Is Also Ready.

New York, Nov. 13.-The reasons CIV
en- by E. H. Hartman why he should
not answer certain questions put to him
during an investigation by the inter-
state commerce commission are set
forth in a brief which has been filed by
former Judge D. S. Lovett, counsel for
Mr.. Hartman. The proceedings
brought by the commission to compel
Mr.. Hartman to answer the questions
is to come up before Judge Hough of
the United States circuit court today.
The principal point in the brief is the
contention that the acts concerning
which Mr.. Hartman was questioned
did not relate to interstate commerce,
nor to violation of the interstate
compel disclosure by him of trans
actions for which, had they taken
place, neither the commission nor the
congress Of the United States could af-
ford constitutional remedy" =
The brief also sets forth that Mr..
Hartman does not admit that the in
terstate commerce commission has any
power other than those conferred by
act of congress- approved February A,
1887, and the amendments thereto.
The questions to which Mr.. Hartman
objected related to the purchase of
stock of other railways in the interests
of the Union Pacific and to the Union
division. In regard to the $2S, 000, 900 of
Illinois Central railroad purchased at
$175 a share, the questions which Mr..
Hartman declined to answer were as
follows:
.eWere the 5000 shares sold by your
self, Mr.. Rogers and Mr., Stillman,
pooled?"
feWas it acquired for the purpose of
selling it to the Union Pacifc?"
WAS the. stock purchased by you at
a much lower price than $175 with the
intention of turning it over to the
Union Pacific?"
did you have any interest in $1,000
shares sold at the time by Kuhn, Loeb
& Co. to the Union Paciic?'
On the subject of the Union Pacific
division, which was advanced from a
rate of 6 per cent to 10 per cent per
annum on August Is, 1906, with a con-
sequent rise in the price of the stock.
Mr.. Hartman declined to answer the
following:
"Were you directly or indirectly in
terested in any stocks that were bought
between the 18th of July and the 18th
of August?"
did you or any director buy any
Union and Southern Pacific stock in
anticipation Of that division?"
Governments Reply.
Arguments will be heard on D the
petition of the interstate commerce
commission for an order requiring
Edward H. Hartman to answer GER
tain questions propounded by the
commission in its investigation of the
Union Pacific railroad and its allied
lines the early part of this year.
Counsel for both sides today were in
active preparation for what promises
to be a legal battle the result of
which may have an important bearing
on not only the direct issue involved,
but on the province and limitation of
the commerce investigation in the
future.
The arguments will be made by dis
tinguished counsel before Judge
Hough in the United States circuit
court The government will be rep
resented by Henry L. Stimson, United
States district attorney; Frank b. KEEL
logg of ST. Paul and c. A. Severance,
while former Senator John G.. Spooner
of Wisconsin, former Judge r. 5.
Lovett, of the Union Pacific and John
G. Milburn of this city will appear for
Hartman.
1t is learned that in the brief which
will be filed by federal counsel in
court it will be claimed that the inter-
state commerce commission, in max
ing this investigation. was virtually a
congressional committee of inquiry
and was exercising the inquisitorial
of congress. 1t is declared In
the federal brief that under section IL
of the. interstate commerce act the
has authority to inquire
into the business of all common car
riers doing an interstate business, and
und erS section Fl Is required, on or
eCenlber n of each year, to
make and transmit to congress its re-
port, the report to contain such in
formation and data collected by the
commission as may be considered of
value in the determination of ques-
tons connected with regulation of
commerce, together with such recon-
as to national legislation
relating thereto as the commission |
NAV deem necessary 1t is further
claimed that 1t has been held by the |
supreme court of the United States |
that full information necessary as |
basis of intelligent legislation by con-
gress from time to time on the sub |
iect of interstate commerce cannot be |
obtained, nor can the rules established |
for the regulation of such commerce |
be efficiently enforced otherwise than |
through the fundamentally of an adj |
body, representing the |
whole country, always watchful of the |
general interests, and charged with |
the duty not only of obtaining the re- |
ouired information, but of compelling |
by all lawful methods obedience to |
such acts.
II appears in this case, the brief |
claims. that the Union Pacific has be- |
come a great investment concern, that |
n has obligations outstanding to the |
extent of 100000, which have
been used for the purchase of stocks; |
that it is the duty of the commission to |
INQUIRE into this state of affairs and its
affacts on Interstate commerce, so that |