Los Angeles herald., 1907-11-14

the United states, these liberties can only
he interfsred with BY due process Of law"
As to the claim of induisltorlal powers
on behalf Of the commission, Mr.. Milburn
said that word was foreign to foundn-
tions OF American institutions,
Judge Hough desired to know II 1t was
contended that congress could not enact
legislation upon answers to the questions
propounded to Mr.. Hartman.
No Right to MeddIe
I'VE contend that congress has not the
power to legislate to the extent OF ad-
ministering a mans personal business
affairs" replied Mr.. Milburn, and where
congress has not the power to legislate,
certainly 1t has not the power to inves-
tigate."
Mr.. Milburn cited authorities in sup
port Of his contention that the commits
sion had not the power to compel Mr..
Hartman to answer the questions pro-
pounded by 1t.
'The commission is only given power to
enforce the provisions Of the act which
are set forth" said Mr.. Milburn. 1T is
not judicial booy nor is 1t rowing
commission to reform the universe"
Walter d. Hines appeared for Otto
Kuhn OF Kuhn. Loeb & Co., who has held
10j,O 600 shares of Union Pacific stock for
the directors. He said Kuhn. Loeb & Co.
acted as the fiscal agents of the Union
Pacific. 1t was simply practice, he
said, for the Union Pacific to arrange
with Kuhn, Loeb e. Co. on a basis mutu-
ally satisfactory to act as sub-agents,
Former Senator John C. Spooner in
opening his argument pointed out that
there was no question Of the constitu-
tionality of the interstate commerce act
involved
.'If such question had arisen" he
ha bur inQ sfnl1rn Is
/ had a part in the framing of the act.
II is a question of the construction that
we contended for construction of 1t
which will eliminate all doubt In re-
spect to the power of the commission In
a case like this question"
Powers Of state
Mr. Spooner pointed out that the state
may regulate it's own corporations, while
the power OF congress over Interstate
commerce is supreme and conclusive.
1.-THE state fixes the amount of capital
stock of corporation; congress cannot.
The state may repeal corporations
charter; congress cannot. The state may
require that no officer or director shall,
openly .or secretly, have any business
dealings with the corporations with which
he is connected; the federal government
has no such power" continued Mr..
Spooner.
"Can It be assumed that congress has
inouisitorial powers to regulate the divi-
dends of state railroad corporationsT"
The interstate commerce act, he said,
authorizes the commission to elicit such
information as would aid them in dis
charging their duties In the enforcement
of the act.
Taking up one of the questions put to
Mr. Hartman as to whether he was d.
rectly or indirectly interested in any
stocks that were bought between the
10Th of July and the 18th of August, 1905,
that appreciated, Mr., spooner said;
Let II be assumed that Mr.. Hartman
had answered the question and had
stated that he owned stock that was sold
t. the company. Is that interstate COM
merce? Is the question that an agent
has violated his duty as director in any
sense interstate commerce? Is 1t not
matter solely between the corporation, the
stockholders and himself?
Gould congress pass a law prohibiting
a director of company from dealing in
stocks? 1t is inconceivable that matter
of trusteeship between private corpora
ton and one of it's body can be made the
subject of inquisition by an admlnlstra-
tive body of congress.
''In the event of loss, could congress
have made restitution? Is 1t not a state
matter? The state could punish while
congress and the commission could not.
Calls 1t Wrong
Senator Spooner closed by saying that
''to pillory a man at the bar of public
opinion in order to attract the attention
of congress to the supposed need of legis-
lation is out of the domain of the inter-
state commerce commission"
The final argument for the government
was made by Frank B. Kellogg, of spe-
= iccio in the Hqr-
riman case He had not proceeded far
when interrupted by Judge Hough, who
said:
isn't it true, Mr.. Kellogg, that while
the commission is not required to limit
the scope of it's inquiry. did it not, as a
matter of fact, limit its inquiry in this
case by a special order?'
LAS to that, your honor" replied Mr..
Kellogg ''the authorities have held that
a congressional commission need not
limit itself to the subject matter OF
resolution of inquiry. but may go as Tar
as 1t pleaseS so long as 1T keeps Wltnln
the power of congress to investigate.
zone of these questions Mr.. Hartman
declined to answer was as to whether or
not a block of $3O0O0,00O of stock In the
Santa Fe railroad was held by II. H.
Rogers and II. C. Frtck, two Union Pa
cific directors Here is vital Issue. Mr.,
Hartman admits the Union Pacific has
not the right to control the Santa Fe be-
cause it is a competing system, but, your
honor, what is the difference between the
company itself owning the stock and two
directors owning 1t, and using 1t to sup
press competition. AS a matter of fact
there is now no competition between the
Santa Fe and Union Pacific, and all roads
or extensions recently constructed stand
Jointly in the name of the Santa Fe and
the Union Pacific.
Scores Hartman
"Are we to leave the great western
territory of the United States dependent
upon one man? Is there to be no compe-
tition between the Missouri river and the
South Pacific coast? Is congress impo-
tent to prevent group of men from con-
! trolling all the United States through the
medium of the stock ownership by direc-
tors? Is the interstate commerce COM
mission to be prevented from inquiring
into such vital matters as these, because
Mr.. Hartman Wills 1t SOP
| Mr.. Kellogg declared the people of the
United States are vitally interested IN the
solvency of the great railroads.
! The commission should not he hampered
he declared, by the narrow rules of com
mon law in carrying out it's investigation
He said it was purely within the province
of the commission to know how a COM
mon carrier was loaded down with issues