The Bemidji daily pioneer. [volume] (Bemidji, Minn.) 1904-1971, 1908-12-15
HARTMAN NEED
NOT ANSWER.
Railroad Man Wins Sweep
ing Court Victory.
DECISION AT WASHINGTON

|
cIares Union Pacific Magnate Can.
not Be Compelled to Reply to Cues
| tions of the Interstate Commerce
| Commission Concerning Certain
Dealings in Stocks.
! Washington, Dec. 15.-In an opinion
by Justice Holmes the supreme court
of the United States held that E. H.
hartman and Otto Kahn, the latter a
New York banker, should not be re-
quired to answer the interstate COM
MERGE 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 investi-
cation in New York.
! The case came to the supreme court
on cross appeals by Hartman and the
government from the decision of the
circuit 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 connec-
ton with the order of the commission
of Nov. Is, 1906, directing an inquiry
into the combination of the Union Pa
cific road with such other lines as the
Southern Pacific, the Atchison, To-
peka and Santa Fe, the Northern Pa
! ciic, the Great Northern, the Illinois
| Central, the Chicago and Alton and
the New York Central. This order
was very sweeping in character and
intended to develop the facts regard
ing the community of interests be-
tween the Union Pacific and other
roads, the practices and methods of
the roads, the rates received, etc. It
was also hoped that it would bring
out the facts regarding the transfer of
other stocks in the Union Pacific.
! When Mr.. Hartman was put on the
stand he declined, in response to a
question, to say whether he had
owned any of the Chicago and Alton
stocks which were 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 of selling it to the I'm
ion 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 directors of
the Union Pacific.
The circuit court directed Mr.. Harri-
man to reply to these questions and
he responded by appealing to the su-
preme court.
The appeal of the government from
the decision Of the court was based
upon the refusal of the lower court to
compel Mr.. Hartman to answer a
question as to whether he had pur-
chased stock in the Union Pacific in
anticipation of an increased dividend.
There was also a proceeding against
Otto II. Kahn, a member of the New
York banking house of Kuhn, Loeb &.
Co., who were the financial agents of
the Union Pacific, similar to that
against Hartman. Mr.. Kahn refused
to answer questions covering the
points upon which Mr.. Hartman de-
clined to enter
! Much interest has been felt in the
lease because of it's very great impor-
/ hn >E tho
courts decision was listened to with
deep interest by those present in the
court. The opinion reversed the de-
cision of the lower court in so far as
it compelled responses and affirmed
the portion in which the court refused
to compel such responses. 1t was
sweeping victory for Hartman and
hic ascOciatoc