Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-12-14
HARTMAN WINS CASE
Supreme Court Decides He
Need Not Make Answer.
BLOW TO THE COMMISSION
Power to Investigate Gone, Says
Justice Day, Dissenting.
STOCK TRANSFER INVOLVED
Order Now Denied Was Intended to
Develop Facts Regarding Com
munity of Railroad Interests.

III du opinion by justice Holmes tile Su-
preme Court of the United States today
held that E. H. Hartman and Otto Kahn,
the latter New York banker, should
not be required to answer the interstate
commerce commissions questions con-
corning dealings in stocks between the
Union Pacific and other roads to which
they refused to make response when the
subject was under investigation in New
York.
Constituting the decision of the court in
dissenting opinion. Justice Day ex-
pressed the opinion that the construction
given the interstate commerce law takes
from the commission all power of investi-
cation.
Justice Holmes words OH the subject OF
the limitation of the commissions power
or inquiry are in part as follows:
I'VE are of opinion that the purposes OF
the act for which the commission may eX-
act evidence embrace only complaints for
violation of the act and investigations by
the commission upon matters that might
have been made the subject of complaint
The main purpose of the act was to regu-
late the interstate business of carriers and
the secondary purpose, that for which the
commission was established was to en-
force the regulations enacted.
In other words the power to require tes-
timony is limited, as it usually is in Eng
disappearing countries. at least to the
only cases where the sacrifice of privacy
is necessary-those where the investiga-
tions concern a specific breach of the
law"
Justices Harlan and McKenna united
with Justice Day in his dissent.
Sweeping in It's Character.
The case came to the Supreme Court
on cross appeals by Hartman and the
government from the decision of the cir
cult court of the United States for the
southern district of New York, holding
that Mr.. Hartman should be compelled
to make response to most of the questions.
1t arose in connection with the order of
the commission of November Is, 1906. d.
rectfng an inquiry into the combination
of the Union Pacific road with such other
lines as the Southern Pacific. the Atchi-
son. Topeka and Santa Fee. the Northern
Pacific the Great Northern. the Illinois
Central. the Chicago and Alton and the
New York Central. This order was very
sweeping in character, and was intended
to develop the facts regarding the COM
munity of interest between the Union Pa
cifc and other roads, the practices and
methods Of the roads, the rates received.
etc.
1t was also hoped that it would bring
out the facts regarding the transfer of
stock Of other roads to the Union Pa
cif1c.
When Mr.. Hartman was put on the
stand he declined in response to a ques-
ton to say whether he had owned any
of the Chicago and Alton stock. which
was purchased by the Union Pacific, and
the price Of which had been fixed by
himself: whether a portion of the stock
Of the Illinois Central had been acquired
by a pool, of which he was a member,
with the view to selling it to the Union
Pacific. and whether the Union Pacific
directors were interested in the New
York Central stock which was acquired
by the Union Pacific.
He also declined to state how much of
the stock of the Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe was owned by the directors OF
the Union Pacific.
The circuit court directed Mr. Harri-
man to reply to these questions and he
responded by appealing to the Supreme
Court.
Basis of Governments Appeal.
The appeal of the government from the
decision of the court was based upon
the refusal of the lower court to COM
pei Mr.. Hartman to answer a question
as to whether he had purchased stock
in the Union Pacific in anticipation of an
increased dividend
There was also proceeding against
Otto H. Kahn, member of the New
York banking house of Kuhn. Loeb G. Co.,
who were the financial agents of the
Union Pacific, similar to that against
Hartman. Mr.. Kahn refused tC answer
questions covering the points upon which
Mr.. Hartman declined to enter.
Much interest has been felt in the case
because of its very great importance. and
the announcement of the courts decision,
which was made by Justice Holmes, was
listened to with deep interest by those
present in the court. The opinion reversed
the decision Of the lower court, in so far
as 1t compelled responses, and affirmed
the portion in which the court refused
to compel such response. 1t was a sweep
ing victory for Hartman and his asso-
ciateS.
Expected by Mr.. Hartman.
NEW YORK. December 14.-Mr. Harri-
man said in reference to the decision of
the Supreme Court at Washington today
that he had always been confident of
such an outcome. Personally. he said,
he had never had any objection to an
swering the questions asked, and would
nave been rather glad to do SO
If 1t had been proper. but his relation
to his corporations forbade his disclosing
their condolences except in a lawful way.