The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1908-12-26
Decision believed to Seriously
Cripple Efficiency of Interstate s
Commerce Commission,
FIVE JUSTICES CONCUR z
THREE OTHERS DISSENT
Hartman Sustained in Refusal to
Answer Questions Directed
BY Commission.

WASHINGTON, D. e., Dec. -
A decision believed to seriously
cripple the Interstate commerse COM
mission was made on the 14th by the
supreme court of the United States.
The commission had in 1907 set about !
investigating the stock-jobbing trans
actions of Edward H. Hartman,
whereby he and others had manipu-s
lated railway bonds and stocks in such
manner as to water. the stock Of
companies Of which they were direc-
tors and to appropriate the proceeds.
Among. the witnesses called by the
commission was Mir. Hartman him
self.
Refused to Answer Questions.
Mr. Hartman refused to answers
several questions. On>. of these ques-
tions' was whether 10000 shares of the
Illinois Central stock bought by the
Union Pacific from Hartman, Rogers
and Stillman were acquired by them
with view of selling it to the Union
Pacific, whether they were bought for
a much lower price than they were
sold for, or whether he had any in
tcrest in the 100000 shares of Illinois
Central stock, also sold to the Union
Pacific through Kuhn, Loeb & Co.
He was silent also upon being asked
when he acquired the stock of the
st. Joseph and Grand Island railroad,
which he sold to the Union Pacific,
and what he paid for it, and whether
any directors of the Union Pacific
were interested directly or Indirectly
in the New York Central railroad
stocks bought bzy the big Hartman
roads. - " ..-e 5as
Persisted in His Refusal. zs z<
These refi1sa1ss to answer were per-
sisted in after a. mandatory order from
the commission. The United Statess
circuit court at New. York. upon be-
ing appealed to by the commission,
commanded Mr.. Hartman to answer
the questions; but the, supreme court
now reverses the lower court and
sustains Mr.. Hartman. In respect Of
two other questions asked by the COM
mission which Mr.. Hartman declined
to answer, the circuit court decided
against the commission and is now
sustained by the supreme court. An
other witness before the. commission
in this investigation was Otto n.
Kuhn, of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. He was
asked WHeLHer any directors OF the
Union Pacific were real owners of the
Chicago & Alton shares which were
sold to the Union Pacific, and whether
any of them owned any Of the 10000
shares of Illinois Central, similarly
sold to the Union Pacific. He was
also asked whether he had bought any
Of these shares for Hartman, Rogers
and Stillman, and whether they and
he were in a pool operating in Illinois
Central stock at that time. He re-
fused to answer all these questions
when directed to do so by the cons
mission. The United States supreme
court now reverses that decision.
Supreme Court Decision.
The point which the supreme court
makes in these cases is that the in-
vestigation did not deal directly with
the question Of rates which could be
regulated by the commission. The
opinion Of the court was written by
Justice Holmes and concurren in by
four other justices. Justice Day read
a dissenting opinion concurred dn by
Justices Harlan and McKenna.