The Washington herald., 1908-01-05


Railway Company, on the Santa Fe
rected the Attorney General to prepare
statement covering the administration
side Of the controversy.
Attorney General Bonaparte avowed
that he was averse to newspaper con-
troversy." but has complied with the
Presidents order to the extent of 5000
words
The Santa Fe Railroad was convicted
OF giving rebates and was fined.
Mr.. Ripley's letter. which followed. was
widely published.
In answering Mr.. Ripley's statements,
3 the Attorney General recalls that on
September !. 1906. United States Attorney
Oscar LAWYER, Of the Southern district
Of California. informed the Department
OF Justice that a young man named Sap
penheld had been held to answer for the
crime Of embezzlement on a charge pre-
ferred by the Santa Fe Company. Sap
.penheld. who was an employee of the com
pany, proceeded to give Mr.. Lawler some
Information about alleged rebates given
by the Santa Fe. Thereupon the Depart
ment Of Justice instructed the district
attorney 20 have the Santa Fe investi-
gated by the grand jury.
Tried 10 Block Investigation.
The Attorney General says in his re-
port:
In accordance with these instructions.
the United States attorney, when the
grand jury had been impaneled, caused
subpoenas to be issued to various en-
ployes Of some local business houses and
to certain officials of the railroad COM
pany, requiring their attendance as wit
nesses before the grand jury and the pro-
duction or certain records. ThereupOn.
the said witnesses all appeared by the
counsel Of the railroad company, and filed
motions 70 quash the. several subpoenas
upon a variety of grounds. none of which
disclosed any reason why the production
Of the papers in question could be in any
wise injurious either to the railway COM
pany or to the witnesses summoned, II
they we're conscious Of innocence. These
motions. some fourteen in number hav-
ing been fully argued. were denied by
the court. After some further contro-
versy and under threat of a proceeding
for contempt a portion Of the evidence
called for was finally produced by the
railroad company. but when another sub
poena was issued requiring the produc-
ton of certain tissue copy books, and a
motion to quash this subpoena had been
made. argued, and overruled by the court.
the railroad company sought to obtain
writ of error to the Supreme Court from
the denial Of the aforementioned motion.
and. in the meantime. to secure a stay
until the decision Of the question, which.
Of course, would have meant a long delay
in the proceedings.
Sues It's own Employees.
Judge Wellborn having refused 10
grant this stay. the railroad company
thereupon filed a bill in equity against
its own auditor and a clerk in his office,
who had custody of the papers desired.
and the United States attorney and mar
shal, asking that they be all perpetually
enjoined from the production or requir-
ing the production of the papers called
for in the subpoena, and asked for a
temporary restraining order 70 the same
effect. What passed in connection with
this restraining order Is thus stated by
the United States attorney in his report
In chambers District Judge Wellbon indicated
that he would refuse 70 grant any such order. On
the following morning counsel for the railway CON
ldny, without notice 10 my Office appeared in the
chambers Of Circuit Judge Ross and In some way
created upon the part Of the latter the impression
that the signing Of the order had been practically
agreed upon by Judge WelboFn, and owing to the
illness Of the latter and his inability 10 be al
his chambers, Judge Ross signed the preliminary
restraining order. believing that he vas acting IN
accordance with the views Of judge WeIlborn pre-
vioasy expressed Judge Ross Immediately notiied
me Of his action and, upon my advising him Of the
facts, forthwith ordered counsel for the railway com
pany 70 appear az his chambers and dissolved the re-
s1aining order. but unfortunately after the return
time Of the subpoenas. 1t was therefore necessary
TO issue another subpoena which vas made return
able few days later, and second blll in equity vas
hed similar in form and seeking the same relief
which peTemptorily denied by Judge Ross in
chambers who was Obliged. In the course Of the az
gment 20 severely Te6uke counsel for the railway
company for his abusive language and discouTteous
demeanoT, and took occasion TO comment upon the
circumstances under which the former restraining OF
der had been obtained
THE subpoena lastly above mentioned
called for the production of tissue copy
books relating 10 transactions for the
years 1908 and 1905 and until August 1,
1905. and In the bill for an injunction the
railroad company used the following Ian
guage:
said copy books contain copies Of about
5000 vouchers and other papers which were issued
and made and said copies thereof made in the years
1904 1895. and 1905 during which time your orators
gross earnings business done west of Albuquerque
New Mexico. amounted &c more than S50oo0OO0 - >
SSOFe Books Were burned.
This bin. of course was sworn to.
After Judge Ross had refused to pass
the restraining order on the bill. the
company's auditor appeared with five of
the tissue copy books called for the ear
lest Of which contained transactions
dated about July l, 1906 and stated that all
the books relating TO transactions OF
earlier dates had been burned long time
previously. These facts appear to be rele-
want in connection with the statement In
Mr.. Ripley's letter that
This Investigation continued for nearly three
months. during which time the railway C1mpany was
called upon 20 furnish, and did furnish, a large
number OF hooks and papers. and vas submitted 10
what appeared TO be a general in9uisitiOn with re-
spect to all its business for the preceding three
years
while the investigation was in prog
ress before the grand jury, and almost
Immediately after my assumption OF the
Office OF Attorney General. / was called
upon by MIR. Gardiner LathTOp. on behalf
of the railroad company. and requested, in
substance, to direct the United States at
torney to abandon proceeding or, at all
events. to suspend it until the Interstate
Commerce Commission could make an in
qi3iry respecting the transactions Of the
company which were then under consid-
Grafton by the grand jury, Mr. Lathrop
told me- In substance, that the proceed
ing was involous and vexatOns, Origi-
mated IN ill-will toward the company and
desire fer notoriety on the part Of the
limited States attorney and iuvoIver q