Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1907-11-13
yHY HE REFUSED TO ANSWER
He Alleges that Questions Asked Of
Him Are Improper.
Az AUTHORITY is DENIED
SAYS Inquiries Do Not Relate to
Interstate Commerce.
NOTHING ILLEGAL, ANYWAY
HAD TransactIOn- Hcferv~d 60 TakeW
Place CouEr~ss - without Coa-
sHtutIonRI Poucv to AROrd
HcwSJS,

HCmSJS.
NEW YORK. NOV i2.-Thc reasons given
by E. H Hartman as to Why he would
not answer certain questions Put TO hhn
during ain investigation hy the Interstate
Commerce commission arc sot forth in a
brief which was nlod by former Judge X.
S. T.ovctt counsel FOR Mr thurman, The
proceedings brought by the commission 70
compel NIr. Hartman 20 answer the uuos-
tlons arc to come up before Judge liough
OF the United states circuit court tomor-
row Tho principal point IN the hriet vs.
the contention that the facts CONCERNING
which Mr.. Hartman was questioned did
not relate to Interstate commerce nor 20
a violation Of the Interstate commerce
act but were designed TO compel dis
closure by him OF transactions for whicl
had they taken place neither the cont
mission nor the congress OF the United
states could afford a constitutional rcrn-
edv.'
The brief also sets forth that Mr.. 1larri-
man does not consider that the commission
has other powers than those conferred hy
the act of congress approved February 4,
1887. and the amendments thereto,
Questions He, RetuHed 60 Answer.
The questions to which Mr. Hartman ob.
icctcd related 20 tho purchase of stock OF
other railways in the interest of tho Union
Pacific and to the Union Pacific dividends.
In regard TO the S2SOo0OOo of Illinois Cen
tral purchased at $40 share tho questions =
which Mr.. Hartman declined TO answer
were as follows:
Were the 5000 shares sold by Nourscit
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Stillnan pooled?
Was It acquired for the purpose OF sell
ing It TO the Union Pacific?
N~ag fIa II nplF rngphaunn
much lower price than $40 with the In
tention of turning It over 20 tho Union
Did you have any interest in 5000 shares
sold az the time by Kuhn, Loeb & Co. 10
the Union Pacific?
On the subject OF Union Pacific dividend
which was advanced from rate of per
cent to 10 per cent on August Is, 1905, with
! consequent rise in the price cf the stock,
Mr.. Hartman declined TO answer the fol-
| lowing:
Were YOU directly or indirectly Interested
! in any stocks that were bought between
July 10 and august y thst sppvsciatg9IaT, 9Il,,,
| and Southern Pacific stock IN anticipation
of that dividend?
Abstract Of the Answer.
in the brief tho following reasons ara
! given why MT Hartman should not give
! the information sought by the commission;
First-Said questions did not relate Ia
| commerce with foreign nations or among
| the several states or with the Indian
! tribes. or TO any transactions in such conf
merce; nor, however answered, would they
| tend TO show any violation of the provis-
| ions of the said act to regulate conlmarve
or any other law of the United states or
| any law which congress could constitution
| ally enact and make operative upon any
| corporation created by and deriving its
| franchises and powers from state; but
| said questions did relate to the business
! and affairs of this respondent having no
relation TO such commerce. and were de-
signed to compel disclosure by this. re-
| spondent to a purely administrative body
| of transactions for which, had they taken
| place, neither the said commerce nor the
| congress of the United States could afford
| a constitutional remedy.
| The second contention is that II the act
| approved in 1887 be construed to give the
| Interstate Commerce commission power TO
| inquire into the business OF Mr.. Hartman
| having no relation to interstate commerce,
! such is in violation Of the constitution Of
the United States and void.
| The third Is that to compel response 10
| the questions asked save in court of
competent Jurisdiction would deprive the
respondent (Ndr. Hartmann Of liberty with
/
Y OF the amendments 20 the constitution
OF the United States.
Not Based On COmpIaInt.
| The fourth is that the questions did not
relate to the business Of the Union Pacific
| Railway company, the Southern Pacific
and the Oregon Railroad and Navigation
| company, common carriers, nor 80 the
! interstate transportation ot goods or per.
/ ~ said po17pnu is AT foTfb in
the fifth paragraph oG tle contentious why
response should not os given. that the com
missions inquiry at ssNich the questlOnG
! were asked was not basad on any com
! plant Of anything done, or omitted 20 he
/ done, by the companies named in the COM
| plaint above in contraventiOn OF the in
| terstato commerce law.
| The sixth point raised By ]. @. Lovett 10
| that II the interstate commerce act he con-
| strued as authorizing and empowering the
| commission in the conducting OF an in
| qulry or investigation without any COM
| plaint having been made 20 II, or any state
ment Of charges contained In such com
| plant having been presented 20 or served
! on any such common carriers, or the re-
spondent, Mr. Hartman. 10 put the said
| questions to this respondent and require
| him to answer the same such act is to
| that extent In violation Of tile provision OF
/ article Of the amendments to the consti-
| tuition Of the United staes, which provides
! that no person shall be deprived OF lie.
1 liberty or property without due process Of
law.
! The seventh and last declaration il that
| the order made by the Interstate Commercs
| commission on November ~, 1865. on the
| subject r. so general vague and indehnits
| in its terms as to fail 10 define any matter
as being under Investigation, either with re-
| spect TO the Union Pacific Railroad com
| psny or any other person OF corporation.
| and the said questions wero not pertinent
| OF relevant 10 any inquiry alleged or
/ claimed TO have been authorized thereby.
presbyterian brotherhood.