The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-11-13
HARRIMAN's DEFENSE.
Brief Sets Forth Reasons for Not An
 sWering Questions.


 New York, November 12.-The req sons given by E. H. Hartman as to why he should not answer certain ques- tions put to him during an investiga- tion by the interstate commerce com mission are set forth in brief which has been filed by former Judge R. S. Lovett counsel for Mir. Hartman. The proceedings brought by the commission to compel MT. Hartman to answer the questions is to come up before Judge Hough of the United States circuit court tomorrow.
 The principal point on the brief is the contentious that the acts concern ing which MT. Hartman was question: ed did not relate to interstate com merce nor to violation of the inter- state commerce act, but were designed to compel disclosure by him of trans actions for which had they taken place neither the commission nor the Con gress of the United States could afford constitutional remedy
 The brief also sets forth that MT. Hartman does not admit that the in- terstate commerce commission has any powers other than those conferred by the act of Congress approved February 1, 1887, and the amendments thereto.
 The question to which MT. Hartman objected relate to the purchase of stock of other railways in the interest of the Union Pacific and to the Union Pacific dividend.
 Questions in Detail.
 In regard to the $2SO00,000 of Illinois Central stock purchased at $175 share, the questions which MT. Hartman de- clined to answer were as follows:
 Were the s0,000 shares sold by your self MT. Rogers and MT. Stllman, pooled?'
 Was it acquired for the purpose Of selling it to the Union Pacifie?'
 Was the stock purchased by you at a much lower price than s175 with the in- tention of turning it over to the Union Pacific?"
 shares sold at the time by Kuhn, Loeb & Co. to the Union Pacific?"
 Were those 15,000 shares acquired by the same pool for the purpose of selling them to the Union Pacife?'
 On the subject of the Union Pacific divi- dend, which was advanced from a rate of 6 per cent to 10 per cent per annum on August 15, 1906 with a consequent rise in the price of the stock, MT. Hartman declined to answer the following;
 Were you directly or Indirectly inter ested in any stocks that were bought be- tween July 19 and August r that appre- ciated?"
 Did you or any director buy any Union and Southern Pacific stock in any anticipation of that dividend?'
 Harriman's Reasons.
 In the brief the following-reasons are given why MT. Hartman should not give the information sought by the com- mission;
 ''1 Said questions did not relate to commerce with foreign nations, or among the several states, or with the Indian Territory or to any transaction i'll sueh commerce, nor, however, answered 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 constitutionallys enact and make operative upon any corporation created by and de irving it's franchises and power from a 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 disclosure by this respondent to a purely admin istrative body of transactions for which, had they taken place, neither the said commerce commission nor the Congress of the United States could afford consti- tutional remedy"
 The second contention, that if the act approved February 1. 1887. be construed to give the interstate commerce commission power to inquire into the business of MT. Hartman, having no relation to inter state commerce, such is in violation of the constitution of the United States and void.
 The third is that to compel response to the questions asked save in a court of competent jurisdiction would deprive the respondent, (Mr. Harrlman) of liberty without due process of the law, contrary to article five of the amendments to the constitution of the United States.
 The fourth is that the questions did not relate to the business of the Uuion Pa cinc railway company, the Southern Pa cihc company, the Oregon Short Line railway company and the oregon Railroad and Navigation company common cal rier or distribute transportation of goods or persons by said company.
 No Breaking of Law.
 It is set forth in the fifth paragraph of the contentious why response should not be given, that the commissions in- quiry at which the questions were asked was not based upon any complaint Of any thing done. or omitted to he done by the companies named above in eontraven- tion Of interstate commerce law.
 The sixth point raised by Mr. Lovett. is that If the interstate commerce act be construed as authorizing and empower ing the commission in the conduct of an inquiry or investigation without a1y complaint having been made to it, or any statement of charges contained in any such complaint having been presented to or served upon any such common Car rier. or the respondent, tMr. Harriman) to put the said questions to this extent in violation of the provision of article five of tne amendments to the constitu- ton of the United States which provides that no person shall be deprived of lre, liberty or property without due process of law.
 'The seventh and last declaration is that the order made by the interstate