The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-11-13
HOUSE PASSES FIVE
 OF THE COMER BILLS.


 intention of turning 1t over to the Un- ion PacifcT"
 ''Did you have an interest in fifteen thousand shares sold at the time by Kuhn, Loeb and Company to the Union PacificT"
 Were those fifteen thousand shares acquired by the same pool for the pur- pose of selling the to. the Union Pa cific7"
 On the subject of the Union Pacific dividend. which was advanced from g rate of six per cent to ten per cent per annum on August Is. 1906. with a con- Mir. Hartman declined to answer the
 Were you directly or indirectly i'm terested in any stocks that were bought between the iyth of July and the l7tb of August that appreciate"
 "Dio you or any director buy any Union and Southern Pacific stock in an- ticipation of that dividend?"
 In brief. the following reasons are given why Mir. Hartman should not give the information sought by the commission.
 .'l. Said questions did note relate to commerce with foreign nations or among the several States or with the Indian Territory or to any transaction in such commerce.; nor. however an- swered would they tend to show any violation of the provisions of the said act to regulate commerce or any other law of the United States or any law which Congress could constitutionally enact and make operative upon any corporation created by, and deriving its franchises and power from State; but said questions did relate to the business and affairs of this respondent having no relation to such commerce. and were designed to compel disclos- ure by this respondent to a purely ad- ministrative body of transactions for which they had taken place. neithe or the said commerce commission nor the Congress of the United States could af- ford a constitutional remedy"
 The second contention, that if the act approved Feb. {, 1887 be construed to give the Interstate Commerce Com mission power to inquire into the business of Mir. Hartman having no relation to interstate commerce, such ia in violation of the Constitution Of the United States and void.
 Contrary to Constitution.
 The third is that to compel re- sponse to the quesEions asked save in a court of competent Jurisdiction would deprive the respondent (Mr. Harri- man} of liberty without due process of the law. contrary to Article 5 of the amendment to the constitution of the United States"
 The fourth Is that the questions did not relate to the business of the Union Pacific Railway Company, the Southern Pacific, the Oregon Short Line Rail- way Company and the Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company. as common carriers or to the interstate transpor- tation of goods or persons by said company"
 It is set forth in the fifth paragraph of the contentious why response should not be given; that the commlsaiop's inquiry at which the questions were asked was not based upon any com piaint of asxtaing aons one ,, gr 0IIl.stss ..s ,. above in centraventicn Of the inter- state commerce. law. <,
 ''The sixth point raised by Mir. Lov- cit is that if the interstate commerce act be construed as authorizing and empowering the commission in the con. duct on an inquiry or investigation wi iiout aiiy coiapiaifiti iii i having 6uui made to 1t. or any statement of charges contained in any such complaint hay- ing been presented to preserved upon ahy such common carrier or the re- spondent. tMr. Harriman). to put the said questions to this respondent and require him to answer the same. such act is to that extent in violation of the provision of Article 5. of the amend ments to the constitution of the United States which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or propefty without due process Of the law.
 "The seventh and last declaration is that the order made by the Inter- state Commerce Commission on Nov. l1. 1906, on the subject is so general. vague and indefinite in its terms as to fail to define any matter as being un-i der investigation either with respect to the Union Pacific Railroad Company or any other person or corporation and the said questions were not pertinent or relevant to any inquiry alleged or claimed to have been authorized there by"