Los Angeles herald., 1907-11-13
HARTMAN
HITS BACK
AT BOARD
SAYS COMMISSION EXCEEDS
ITS POWERS
MAeNATE's ATTORNEY FILES A
LENGTHY BRIEF
Railroad King Asserts Interstate corr,-
merce Body Violates Constitution
In Compelling Him to Ex-
pose Deals
BY Associated Press.

6y AbbOClateQ freBb-
NEW YORK, Nov. 12.-The reasons
given by e. H. Hartman why he should
not answer certain questions put to him
during an investigation by the inter-
state commerce commission are set Iortn
in brief which has been filed by former
Judge r. s. Lovett, counsel FOR MT. dar-
riman.
The proceedings brought by the COM
mission to compel Mr.. Hartman to
answer the questions is to come up before
Judge Hough of the federal circuit court
tomorrow. The principal point IN the
brief Is that the acts concerning Whlcn
Mr.. Hartman was questioned dld not
relate to interstate commerce nor TO
violation of the Interstate commerce act,
hit were designed to compel disclosure
by him of transactions for which had
they taken place, neither the commits
sion nor the congress of the United
States could afford constitutional rem
edy."
The brief also sets forth that Mr. Har-
riman does not admit that the Interstate
commerce commission has any powers
other than those conferred by act or
congress February 8, 1887, ana the afnenu-
ments thereto.
The questions to which Mr.. Hartman
objected related to the purchase of stock
of other railroads in the interests or the
Union Pacific and to the Union Pacihc
dividend.
In regard to the S2S,OOO,O0O of Illinois
Central purchased at $175 share, the
questions which Mr.. Hartman declined
to answer were as follows:
Were the 5000 shares sold by yourself,
Mr. Rogers and Mr.. Stillman pooled?
Was it acquired for the purpose or SELL
ing it to the Union Pacific?
twas the stock purchased by you at
a much lower price than $175 with the
intention of turning 1t over to the Union
Pacific?
.Did you have any interest in $1,000
shares sold at the time by Kuhn, Loeb
& Co. to the Union Pacific?"
Hartman Refuses to Answer
On the subject of the Union Pacific
dividend which was advanced from
rate of per cent to 10 per cent per
annum on August Is, 1906, with con-
seuuent rise in the price of the stocks,
Mr.. Hartman declined to answer the
following:
"Were YOU directly or indirectly inter-
ested in any stocks that were bought be-
tween the 18th of July and the 18th of
August that appreciated in ValueE
"Did you or any director buy any Union
and Southern Pacific stock in anticipa-
ton of that dividend?"
In the brief the following reasons are
given why Mr.. Hartman would not give
the information sought by the commits
sion:
"First-Said questions did not relate to
commerce with foreign nations, or among
the several states, or with the indian
Territory, or to any transactions in such
commerce, nor, however answered, would
thew 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
constitutionally enact and make operative
rpon any corporation created by and de-
riving its franchises and powers from
state; but said questions did relate to
the business and affairs Of those respon-
dent. having no relation to such COM
nerce and were designed to compel dis
closure by this respondent to purely
administrative body of transactions, for
which, had they taken place, neither the
said commission nor the congress of the
United States could afford constitu-
tional remedy"
Says II Is Unlawful
The second contention is that If the
act approved in 1887 be construed to give
the Interstate commerce commission
mower to inquire into the business of
Mr.. Hartman, having no relation to
interstate commerce, such construction
is in violation of the constitution Of the
United States and void.
The third contention is that to compel
response to the questions asked, save
IN the court of competent Jurisdiction.
would deprive the respondent (Mr. Har-
riman) of liberty without due process of
law, contrary to article of the amend
ments to the constitution of the United
States.
The fourth contention is that the ques-
+ions did not relate to the business of the
Union Pacific Railway company, the
Southern Pacific company, the oregon
Short Line company or the Oregon Rail-
way & Navigation company as common
carriers, nor to the interstate transporta-
tion of goods or persons by such COM
panies.
r. is set forth in the fifth paragraph
of the contentious why response should
not be given that the commissions in
o,,,rv at which the questions were asked
was not based on any complaint of any
thing done or omitted to be done by the
companies named above, in contravention
of rhe interstate commerce law
Violation of Constitution
The sixth point raised by Judge Lovett
Is that il the interstate commerce act
he construed as authorizing and en-
powering the commission in the conduct
IF sn inquiry or investigation without
any complaint ndNllS pSeh ihaue 70 ~
or any statement of charges contained in
env such complaint having been pro-
sented to any such common carrier or
the respondent (Mr. Harriman). to put
~, said questions to this respondent and
reouire him to answer the same, such
is IN violation of the provision of article
of the amendments to the constitution
of the United States which provides that
no person shall be deprived of liberty or
,,-o,,artx, vuithout due process of law.
: The seventh and last declaration is that
the order made by the Interstate COM
tContinued ON Page Eight.)