Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1907-11-13
WHY HARTMAN
REFUSED TO
ANSWER
QUESTIONS COMMERCE
COMMISSIONS POWERS
Acts About Which He Was
Questioned Concerned Mat
ters Beyond Jurisdiction Even
of Congress, Attorneys Claim
In, NarpIns IearnaI spseIal Lea.ea VIII

~ WIZ 120ff NAhRtHfNR ~'''
my Morning journal special Leased Wire.
New York. Nov. 1.-THE reasons
given By = n Hartman, why he
should not ansW en- certain questions
put 20 him during an inyeztigau Q by
the interstate commission
are set forth In a brief which has been
filed by former Judge D. s LoNett.
counsel for Hartman. The proceed
ings brought by the commission 70
compel Mr.. Hartman TO answer the
questions ~ TO eome up before Judge
Hough. OF the United States circuit
court tomorrow The principal point
IN the brief Is the contention that the
acts concerning which Mr.. Hartman
Was on the stand. did not relate 10 in
iersiatc commerce, and were not IN
violation OF the interstate commerce
act. but we're designed 10 compel q
disclosure by him n transactions
which had they taken place, neither
the commission nor the congress Of
the United states could afford a con-
stifullounl remedy"
The brief also sets forth D q MI
Hartman does not admit that the m
t~orsfate 0mnterce commission has any
powers other than those conferred 10y
act 81 congress approved February a.
1871. and the amendments thereto.
no MlE#NNWNH 49, " AAAAAN u p AAAAHN
man objected related to the purchase
of stock 0f other railways IN the in
teresg of the Union Pacific, and 70 the
Union Pacific dividend IN regard 10
the S2S. 900. 900 Of Illinois Central
stock purchased at yt76 q share, the
questions Nj. Hartman declined 70
answer were az follows.
Were the s0.000 shares sold by
yourself Mr. Rogers and Mr.. stiliman
pooled
Was h acquired Tor the purpose Of
selling " a. the Union Pacificfr
Was the stock purchased by you
AZ a.lower price than fif5, With the
intention OF turning It over 10 the
Union Pacific
Did you have any Interest In 1l.000
shares sold 90 the time by Kuhn Loeb
a co. 70 the Union Pacific"
ON the subject ~ the Union Pacific
dividend which was advanced from a
rate ~ & pcr cent TO ~ per cent per
annum on August IS 1905. with u
"sonsequont rise 10 the price Of the
stock, Mr. Hartman declined % an
swer the following
Were YOU directly or indirectly IN
terested ID ans stocks that We're
hnnHht between the 18Th Of July and
the f7th Of August that appreciated
did you or any director buN ans
Tniun on southern Pacific stock in
anticipation ~ that dividcndf :
IA the brief the following reasons
are given why Mr. Hartman should
not give the information sought by
me commission Z
First. aid questions did not relate
20 with foreign nations Or
among the several states. or with the
Indian tribes. or to ans transactions in
such commerce, nor. however nsWer
ca. would then tend 90 show any vio-
iailun ~ the provisions OF fht said acs
10 regulate commerce or u other
law ~ the United states or any law
which congress could co~nstitutloualiy
enact and maxi operative upon any
corporation created by ~ or deriving
iis franchises and powers from as
state. but said questions ala relate
20 the business and affairs ot thiH re-
spoudent. having no relation to such
commerce and were designed Co com.
pei a disclosure by this respondent O.
a purely administrative body Of trans
1oiions for which. had they taken
place. neither the said commission nor
the congress Of the United States could
aaoru "a constitutional remedy.
The second contention o. that NJ the
@ Q approved BOO 1855 bee constraed 10
rive fhe Interstate commerce commits
sion power to inquire into the business
Nr Hartman having no relation
10 iUtfNNAhtF NNNANNfNANi sum hNlANAt NN 4
ton ls ln violation 81 The constitution
be- United States and void.
the third contention h. that 90 COM
net Response To the questions asked
suta Dob "a court 81 competent iurisdic-
finu would deprive the respondent
'Mr Hartmann Of liberty without
HuT process nf law. contrary O. article
a or the amendments nf The constitu-
li1r 10 the Emitted States. The fourth
..HH..HHms j.. HHaH HN4 .aHrT.fH.mH INI
nlt relate 90 rho business 0f the Union
Pacific Railway company the south
trn Pacific company. The oregon
short Tin railway company and the
oregon Railway and Navigation conn
plny. as common carriers, nor 60 Che
Interstate transportation 90 goods ul
persons hy such companics
Or D. set forth in the firth naro-
~ Hpt of the contentious Why response
should NOT be given. that D. come
uleainu.s inquiry Hf which the Hucf-
were asked was mott based nn any
complaint Of anything done uf omitted
90 De- done h2 the cnmunnles naWei
above m centrayention of thc inter
state commerce law
Tho sixth point raised bN Judge Low
ESQ j. THAI 10 the Interstate commerce
arf be- construed as authorizing and
empowering the commission, DOB the
Dundu.f Of au inquiry or lnNesttga-
Aun Without ans complaint having
been made to BE- or anN statement 10
charge contained Bog amy such come
plaint having been presented tn ans
-1rh common carried or the respond
tNir HHrumarl to put tne said
question tn fhis respondent Hui re-
squire Dim fn answer the same such
O. tn tfaf extent in violation ~
toe provision ~ article g uf thr
amendments 0f the constitution nf fne
O. nitrf States which provides that rnI
rrrs1n shall De- deprived ~ nfr lh-
erty or property without due process
lf ian
The seventh and iaet declaration is
fhe 9rfer made boy the interstate
.ummerrc rimmIssiun on NoNemher
it leHe un tIt subject o. so general
iazue and Indefinite bon us terms as tn'
'al a. define ans matter as being un-
EukesuEanuu. either viii respect +,
.n fhe Union PHnfr Railway come :
pans ur uuF other persons nr rurrnfH-
.uls aui the alll questions were nHt 1
pertinent ar relevant to any inquiry
illeatI nr claimed tu have been au-
.horlEsd thereby
CONTROVERSY sARIaITS FAH 1,
REACHING CONStUtTNtIS 4
Counsel for both fpda1 sen I