New-York tribune., 1907-11-13
HARTMAN FILES BRIEF
Calls QUERIES ILLEGAL.
Dismtfs Interstate Commission s
futhority-CaSe 4rgued To-day.

= y Hartman through his counsel. ex-Judge
+ & I,ovett filed brief IN the United states
circuit Court yesterday setting forth the rea-
sons why Mr.. Hartman should not be com
relIed 10 answer certain questions put to him
IN the investigation by the Interstate Commerce
Commission into railroad affairs. The argu-
7,ent m the commissions motion to compel Mr..
Hartman TO answer viii be made before Judge
Hougb. Of the United States Circuit Court, this
morning. Frank B. Kellogg, who has returned
from, St Paul, will represent the commission.
one Of the contentious of Mr.. Hartman Is
that 10 compel him 10 answer the questions
asked except in court of competent jurlsdlc-
ton would deprive him of liberty without due
process Of law, contrary to Article D OF the
Amendments 20 the Constitution Of the United
states The principal contention is that the
acts which 9Ir. Hartman was asked about dld
not relate TO q violation OF the Interstate Com
uaerce act, but were designed to compel dis
closure by him of transactions for which. had
thew taken place, neither the commission nor
the Congress OF the United States could afford
= constitutional remedy"
The brief further sets forth that Mr.. Harri-
man does not admit that the Interstate Com
raerce Commission has any powers other than
those conferred by the act of Congress ap-
proved on February 4, 1887. and the amend
nents to it. If this act, IL is further argued, oe
construed 20 give IlS COulIllSSloH pONCi ~ -
auire into the business of Mr.. Hartman having
no relation 10 interstate commerce, it, then, is
in violation of the Constitution, and therefore
void.
The fourth contention is that the question did
not relate to the business of the Union Pacific,
the Southern Pacific, the Oregon Short Line and
the oregon Railroad and Navigation companies
IS common carriers. or to the interstate trans
portation of goods or persons by the companies
mentioned.
The fifth point is that the questions were not
based upon any complaint Of anything done or
omitted TO be done by the companies in contra
vention Of the interstate commerce law.
The sixth point raised IS that il the interstate
commerce act can be construed as empowering
The commission in the conduct OF an inquiry or
investigation, without any complaint having
been made to IT, or any statement of charges
obtained in any such complaint having been
presented to or served upon any such common
carrier or the respondent to put the questions
10 this respondent and require him to answer
them, such act is to that extent in violation of
the provision Of Article V OF the amendments
Of the federal Constitution.
The last declaration is that the order made by
the Interstate Commerce Commission on No
ember Is. 1906, on the subject is so general,
vague and indefinite In its terms as to fail TO
define any matter as being under investigation
either with respect to the Union Pacific Rail
road Company or any other person or corpora
ton, and the said questions were not pertinent
or relevant to any inquiry alleged or claimed TO
have been authorized thereby.
The questions Mr.. Hartman refused to an
sN-er related TO the purchase OF the stock OF
other railroads in the interest Of the Union
Pacific and to the Union Pacific dividend. In
regard to the S2S.OOO.0OO of Illinois Central,
purchased at S175 a share, the questions which
Mr. Hartman declined to answer follows
Were the 10000 shares sold by yourself. Mr..
Rogers and Mr.. Stillman pooled?
Was Ii acquired for the purpose OF selling Il
to the Union Pacific?
Was the stock purchased by you at much
lower price than s175 with the intention Of
turning il over TO the Union Pacific?
Did Won have any interest in the 1O5.O0O shares
sold al the same time by Kunn, Loeb & Co. to
the Union Pacific?
Was that l05 600 shares acquired by the same
pool for the purpose Of selling them 70 the
Union Pacific?
on the subject Of the Union Pacific dividend
which was advanced from a rate OF per cent
10 10 per cent per annum August Is, 1906,
with consequent rise in the price Of the stock.
aTr Hartman declined to answer the following:
Were you directly or indirectly interested in
any stocks that bought between July 10
and August II that appreciated?
Did you any director buy any Union and
Southern Pacific stock in anticipation of that
dividend