Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1907-11-13
Contest Starts in Court to
Determine Whether He Can
Defy Congress or Not
DECISION OF VITAL IMPORT.
Arguments Being Made on the Cues
ton of Compelling Rail Magnate to
Answer Questions of Interstate Com
merce Commission-What Harrim an
Wouldn't Tell.

| New York, Nov. "a Edward II. Har-
rman will enter the lists with the I'm
tied States government in u legal bat
tie to determine whether or not he car
defy the interstate commerce COM
mission in the matter Of divulging in
| formation concerning the purchase OF
stocks and their sale to the Union Pa
| citic.
| A powerful array of counsel on both
sides will make the arguments before
Judge Hough in the United States cir
cult court. The government will be
represented by Henry l.. Stimson, I'm
tied States district attorney; Frank L.
Kellogg of ST. Paul. and G. A. Sever
ance, While former Senator John C.
Spooner of Wisconsin, former Judge r.
S. Lovett of the Union Pacific, and
John G. Milburn of this city. will APP
pear for MI. Hartman.
The argument is regarded by the
lawyers engaged in 1t as being the
most important legal issue that has
arisen since organization of the inter-
state commerce com mission.
Apart from the point directly In
VOWED the result will have an import
ant bearing on the province and liml-
tations of the commissions future In
vestigations.
Mr.. Hartman as witness during
the investigation by the commission
Of the Union Pacific railroad and its
allied lines refused to answer certain
questions propounded by the commits
sions examiner In the answer to the
commissions petition, which has just
been filed, counsel for Mr.. Hartman
commended that MIR. Harrimans acts In
the matter did not relate to Interstate
commerce and therefore the commits
sion had no right to put the questions
and to demand answers. In the brief
which the governments attorneys will
file in court tomorrow it will he
claimed that the interstate commerce
commission. in making this investga-
ton, was virtually a congressional
committee of inquiry and was exer-
cising the inquisitorial powers Of con-
greSs.
What Hartman Wouldn't Tell.
The questions to which Mr.. Harri-
man refused to answer related to the
purchase Of stock of othe" railways In
he interest of the Union Pacific and
to the Union Pacific dividend. In re-
Eard to the s2S.O00.000 of Illinois Cen
trail stock, purchased at SIZE a share,
the questions which Mr.. Hartman de-
c;Ined to answer We're:
Were the 10000 shares sold by your
self. Mr. Rogers and Mr.. Stillman
pooled?
Was 1t acquired for the purpose of
selling ii to the Union Pacific?
Was the stock purchased by you at
q much lower price than SITS. with
the intention of turning 1t over to the
Union Pacific?
Did you have any interest In $4,000
shares sold at the time by Kuhn, Loeb
4. Co. to the Union Pacific?
Was that $1,000 shares acquired by
the same pool for the purpose of SELL
ine them to the Union Pacific?
On the subject of the Union Pacific
dividend, which was advanced from a
1ate of per cent to 10 per cent per
annum on Aug. Is, 1905, with con-
S, quent rise in the price Of the stock.
Mr. Hartman declined to answer the
following:
Were you directly, or indirectly in
terested in any stocks that were bought
he tween the 10th of July and the 18th
of August that appreciated?
Did you or any director buy any I'm
icr and Southern Pacific stock in an
tIcipation of that dividend?
His Reasons for Refusal.
Mr.. Harriman's reasons for refusing
to answer these questions are set
forth in brief which has been filed
by former Judge r. S. Lovett, coun-
sci for Mr. Hartman. The principal
point in the brief is the contention that
the acts concerning which Mr.. Harri-
man was questioned were designed to
compel a disclosure by him Of tran
sactions, which, had they taken place.
neither the commission nor the con-
gress of the United States could af-
ford constitutional remedy"
The brief also sets forth that Mr..
Hartman does not admit that the
interstate commerce commission has