The Washington herald., 1907-06-09

az the White House was not a determina-
tioa 20 abandon the efforts Of the govern
ment 10 bring Mr.. Hartman into the
courts on charges of having violated the
laws in his manipulation and manage
ment Of his comprehensive railway inter
ests While the conference developed
a practical agreement Jhat The danger OF
failure was too great to undertake 10
prosecute NJ. Hartman as an individual
on criminal charges il was decided win
practical unauimity. that in at least one
case, involving alleged violation Of the
law to prevent combinations In restraint
os trade. the government had evidence
strong enough TO win in a civil suit.
Other cases. involving MI Hartman
railway interests. developed differences or
opinion and. while the chances are that
these cases viii not be prosecuted, deh-
mite conclusion on the subject will not be
reached until after the Interstate COM
merce Commission and the Attorney Gen
eraI have re-cxamired the evidence.
Result Of Conference.
out Of the conference several impor-
tant facts developed, which may be set
down as follows:
First. The evidence involving Mr.. Har-
riman in Illegal railway management and
combination Of railway interests was not
sufficient to justify his prosecution on
criminal charges. Furthermore. even if
criminal prosecution were undertaken.
the evidence which Mr. Hartman has
given Of bis transactions was sufficient
under the terms of the Interstate COM
merce act Of 1855. TO insure him immunity
from punishment.
Second The evidence that Mr. Harr1-
man violated the interstate commerce
law (Which should not be confused with
the antitrust law did not appear 90 b-
strong enoash 20 make certain thar it
would insure q verd.c. for the s0veTn-
ment ia any civil suit under that law.
Third. II was questionable whether 4
strong case could be made against Mr..
Hartman in q suit brought under the
antitrust law 20 dissolve majority oi
his railway combinations.
Fourth The evidence involving -he con-
tract under which the Rock Island and
Union Pacific railways agree 20 exercise
control alternately over the Chicago and
Alton Railroad was very strong, and a
suit against Mr. Hartman. based on
this evidence. would probably result in q
verdict for the government.
Only Iiarrimun Considered.
While the conference was called pr-
marilr to discuss al pending trust cases
very little attention was given 20 any Of
the matters ut hand except those affecting
Mr. Hartman There was some consid-
Grafton Of the charges that a combination
in restraint of trade existed among rail
ways entering the Eastern bitumin0us
coal fields. and the prevailing opinion ap-
peared to De that enough evidence 20 in
sure the conviction Of the railways al
legged 70 be parties T. the combination had
not been obtained.
One great point involved I'm the discus
sion AZ the White House was whether
any prosecution directed against Mr.. Har-
rim1n and his railway combinations was
reasonably certain Of success. On this
phase there was considerable doubt as far
as civil proceedings were concerned. but
il was clearly manifest that in the opinion
Of the Presidents advisers it would be
taking long chances TO attempt criminal
proceedings.
Tie issue presented 10 MIR. Roosevelt
and those whom ne called into council
was whether failure Of the government
70 win I'm any case against Mr. Hartman
would not cause a decided setback 20 the
administration antitrust and anti-rail-
way policy.
Different Views Of Evidence.
Differences Of opinion appeared among
the conferses as % the convincing char
acter Of the governments evidence which
it had hoped 20 use TO get verdicts against
NJ. Hartman i'm civil suits under the
antitrust law. Some Of those present
however. maintained that the evidence
against Mr Hartman was sufficient 20
justify lis prosecution, or rather the
prosecution by civil process Of most Of
his railway combinations. The President
apparently. was inclined to this view.
1t was contc1ded that if all the eyi-
denCe collected by the Interstate Com
Uerce Commission was before the confer
euce. it would show an exceedingly
strong case for the government Among
the lawyers present much weight was
given % decisions by the United States
Supreme Court in cases arising under
the antitrust law which some Of them
construed as indicating that Mr.. Harri-
man would have the advantage Of tho
courts opinion in a contest with the
government.
There wee several references to the
question Of the advisabiIity, from Che
standpoint Of public policy, Of Undertak.
ing the prosecution of Mr.. Hartman i
is said although the statement lacks
proper confirmation. that SINE Of the
Presidents advisers believe it would be
Uuwise. in the face cf present conditions
in the money and Industrial world, 20 be.
gin a prosecution which would necessarily
be only the entering wedge to other pros
ecutions Of the same character.
There is no evidence that this phase Of
the matter involved was given any seri
ous consideration. TIE President, it i,
declared. was anxious to have the anti
trust prosecutions continued if it wer,
shown that the law has been violated and
there is q reasonable chance Of victory
for the government
Must 60 over Testimony.
The conclusion was reached that the
matter Of the charges against Mr.. Harri
man required the most careful considera
tion, and that in order TO reach a dednit,
determination it would be necessary t,
have all the evidence compiled and mi
nutely examined by the proper authori
ties The compilation viii be undertakes
by the Interstate Commerce Commission
which viii submit a report to the con
sideraticn Of the Attorney General Whil
the opinion following tho cou:e. ence ap
pears 10 be that the Hartman combiGa
tions w.b not be brought into the courts
except in one case. it is By no mean
certain that this opinion will not be re
versed.
Boy Caught at York, Pm.
Paul Miller. fourteen years old, VIII