Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1907-11-14
MAGNATE FACES
COURT TO OPPOSE MOTION
COMPELLING HIM TO ANSWER
COMMISSIONS QUESTIONS.
RESULTTO LARGELY
DEFINE BODY'S POWER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE CON-
MISSION BELIEVES SUIT is vi
tai AS ADVERSE DECISION
WILL LIMIT ITS POWER.

New YORK, NOV. l3.-Arguments On
the Interstate commerce commission
motion to compel e. H. Hartman to
answer certain questions put to him
during the commission investigation
Of railroad affairs were made in the
United States court today. The gov
ernment was represented by Frank b.
Kellogg, and Judge 3. s. Lovett ap-
peared for Hartman.
Judge Hougn said he would allow
each side three and half hours to
present its case. United States Dis
trict Attorney Stimson opened for the
commission. He said the commission
before starting the investigation, dur
ing which Hartman. was asked ques-
tions which he declined to answer had
stated that the object Of the investiga-
tion was to inquire into various COM
| binations and consultations and for
alleged violations Of the law by GER
| tain railroad engageds in interstate
commerce.
| The Questions Involved.
4 The, questions on which he8csntest
| is made involve mainly the purchase
Of Illinois Central stock by the Union
Pacific through Kuhn, Loeb & Co.
Kuhn, representing the well known
firm of bankers and brokers, will be
asked to answer this question:: Were
any Or all Of the Union Pacific
directors interested in the block CT
stock sold by your company to the
Union Pacific in August, 1902" The
government seeks to show that the
/ directors in effect sold the stock to
themselves, acting for the railroad.
/ Hartman is to be asked concerning
his connection with sensational estab-
lishment of Union Pacific stock on a
10 er cent basis in August, 1906, fol-
lowing the announcement Of which
the stock went up about twenty points.
1t is alleged that the announcement
was held back. two days to give those
on the inside" chance to buy.
His Reasons for Refusal.
i Mr.. Harriman's reasons for refusing
to answer these questions are set forth
in brief which has been filed by
former Judge r. s. Loyett, counsel
for Mr.. Hartman. The principal point
in the brief is the contention that the
acts concerning which Mr.. Hartman
4 was questioning were designed to COM
pei disclosure by him Of transac-
tions, which, "bad they taken place,
neither the commission nor the COIL
gress of the United States could af-
ford constitutional remedy"
The brief also sets forth that Mr..
Hartman does not admit that the in
, terstate commerce commission has
any powers other than those confer
:. red by the act of congress approved
Feb. 4, 1887, and the amendments
thereto.
I Mr.. Harriman's brief contends that
If the interstate commerce act be con.
strued as authorizing and empower.
ing the commission in the conduct e.
an inquiry or investigation, without
any complaint having been made to it
to put questions to this respondent
} and require an answer to the same
!, such acts is to that extent in viola
, ton Of the provision Of article 5 oi
: the amendments of the constitution OF
the United States, which provides thai
no person shall be deprived of life, lib
erty. or property without due process
of law.
, What the Government Contends.
The governments brief declares thai
under section IL of the. Interstate
commerce act the commission ha:
authority to inquire into the manage
ment of the business of all common
carriers doing an interstate busines.
and under section 21 is required on o.
before Dec. of each year, to maxi
and transmit to congress its report
! the report to contain such informa
ton and data collected by the commits
: sion as may be considered of value Ii
I the determination of questions con
!. nected with regulation of commerce
together with such recommendation
! as to additional legislation relating
I thereto as the commission may deen
: necessary.
1t is further claimed that it has bee,
E held by the supreme court of tn
I United States that full information
. necessary as basis of intelligent leg
2 islation by congress from time to tim
a upon the subject of interstate com
8 merce cannot be obtained, nor cal
! the rules established for the regula
; ton of such commerce be efficientl,
enforced otherwise than through th
+ instrumentality of an administrative
L body, representing the whole country
always watchful of the general int.
ests, and charged with the duty no
J. only of obtaining the required inform
5 alton but of compelling by all law
f,,1s bod