The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-11-13
REASONS GIVEN
BYE.H. HARTMAN
Union Pacific Magnate Objects
to Use of Stomach Pump by
Commerce Commission.
PROCEEDINGS BEGIN TODAY
PRINCIPAL POINTS OF DEFEND
ANTS BRIEF.
PROCEEDINGS BEGIN TODAY

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 interstate commission
hre set forth in a brief which has been
filed by former Judge r. S. Lovett'
counsel for Mr.. Hartman.
The proceedings brought by the COM
mission to compel Mr.. Hartman TO
answer the question is to come up be
fore Judge Hough of the United states
circuit court tomorrow. The principal
point in the brief is the contention that
the acts concerning which Mr.. Harrl-
man was questioned did not relate to
interstate m nor TO a violation
of She Interstate commerce act, put
were designed to compel a disclosure
by him of transactions for which, mad
they taken place, neither the commits
sion nor the congress OF the United
States could afford a constitutional
| SsTTsdy brief also sets forth that Mr..
Hartman does rot admit that the IN
terstate commerce commission has any
powers other than those conferred by
act Of congress-, approved Feb 4, 1887,
and the amendments thereto.
Questions Objected To.
The questions 10 which Mr.. Hartman
objected related to the purchase OF
stock of other railways in the interests
of the Union Pacific and TO the Union
Pacific dividend. In regard to the S2S.-
GOO, 600 of Illinois Central purchased at
$1T5 a share, the questions which Mr..
Hartman declined to answer were as
follows:
Were the 5000 shares sold by your
self. Mir. Rogers and Mr.. Stillman
6 pooled?
was it acquired for the purpose of
selling il to the Union Pacific?
Was the stock purchased by you at
a much lower price than S175 with the
intention of turning it over 20 the
Union Pacific?
Did YOU have any interest in 1000
shares sold at the time by Kuhn, Loeb
& Co. to the Union Pacific?
Union Pacific Dividend.
on the subject of the Union Pacific
dividend which was advanced from d
rate OF 6 per cent to 10 per cent per
annum on Aug. 10, 1906, with q conse-
duent rise in the price of h stock,
Mr.. Hartman declined to answer the
following:
Were you directly or indirectly in
terested in any stocks that were
bought between the 18th of July and
the nth of August h a appreciated?
Did you or any director buy any
Union and Southern Pacific stock in
anticipation of that dividend?
Claims of Hartman.
In the brief the following reasons are
given Why Mr.. Hartman. should not
give the information sought by the
commission:
First-Said questions did not relate
TO with foreign nations or
among the several states or with the
Indian tribes or to any transactions in
such commerce., nor, however answered,
Wouid>they tend 10 show any violation
of the provisions of the said act to
regulate mmerc or any other law
j. of the United States, or any law which
could cOnstitutiOnally enact
and make operative upon any corpo-
ration created by and deriving its fran
chises and powers from a state; but
said questions did relate TO the bust
ness and affairs Of this respondent,
having no relation to such commerce,
and were designed to compel q dis
closure by Iii respondent to a purely
administrative body of transactions for
which, had they taken place, neither
the said commission nor the congress
of the United States could afford a
constitutional remedy.
Violation of Constitution.
The second contention is that in the
act approved in 1887 be construed to
give the interstate commerce commits
sion power to inquire into the business
of Mr.. Hartman having no relation to
Interstate commerce, such construction
Is in violation of the constitution of the
limited States and void.
The third contention is that to COM
mel response to the questions asked
save in a court Of competent jurisdic-
tion would deprive the respondent (Mr.
Harriman) of liberty without due proc
ess of law, contrary to article 5 of the
amendments of the constitution of the
United States.
The fourth contention is thai the
questions did not relate to the bust
ness of the Union Pacific Railway COM
pany, the Southern Pacific company,
the Oregon Short Line Railway com
pany and the Oregon Railway & Nav
Continued on Page 2.