The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1908-12-25
ROOT TELLS
ALL ABOUT
LETT TIERS
LETTERS TO GORDON
ARE EXPLAINED
IN DETAIL.

Former Supreme Court Justice
Milo A. Root explained 20 the
state bar association Investigation
committee yesterday Afternoon his
version Of the contents % the let
ters exclusively Published in The
Star yesterday
The explanation az the letter re.
latiug 70 the campaign contribution
from Gordon. which was 10 have
been sent 10 r. H Palmer has 81.
ready been given ia The Star
Judge Root went fully into this
matter and explained every Incl.
dent go connection with it
The letter relating 90 trausporia.
ton in which Judge Root thanked
Gordon for sending ~. Vas explain.
cd by Root 81 follows
MY deaf brother was tn ST Paul
and as be was without means and
wished to come 90 Seattle re.
questsd Gordon % furnish thv
transportation. which he did
Reeardlne the case 81 Harris ~.
The Great Northern ia which IL has
been shown that Gordon wrote the
rchoarinr opinion afterwards filed
by Root. Judge Root made the fol-
lowing explanation after be had
concluded his session with the com.
miftee
There has been misunder.
standing concerning The case ~
Harris va tho Great Northern. in
which judge Gordon dictated or
suggested "a modification 81 one
90 tHe law points The decision 81
the supreme court vas iu favor OF
the plaintiff and AGAINST the Great
Northern railroad both times that
% waa heard in the supreme court
Upon the rvheArng ~ The case the
court modified lta former decision
upon one Of the Law points but
hold against the company upon tho
merits % the case.
When first passed upon hy the
court. the seven Judges stood four
10 three iu favor of The plaintiff
] was one of the four judges who
held against the railroad company,
and wrote the decision The other
three judges filed o dissenting opln.
lnn holding that the case ought 20
have been decided IN favor of the
railroad.
Had Deciding Vote.
IL viii be seen that ] had the
deciding vote. and that had ! been
corrupt az the tool Of Gordon or
the railroad ! could have decided
the case ia favor 0f the company
Judge Gordon complained bitter
Isl OF the decision and said that "
would cause the company 40 end
of trouble replied that J could
not help that. as the plaintiff was
clearly in the right Then Judge
Gordon pointed out that one 81
the law points decided relating 60
che liability 90 the railroad on
ahipmeuts % goods. Was not IN nc.
cord with the rulings Of the federal
court His showing was sufficient
to warrant the court ia rehearing
the case.
Point Of Law.
The point Of law referred 90
may be briefly given as follows
Tho railroad had two rates on
household goods The higher rate
was charged when the company as.
umed ull liability for the value of
the goods. and the lower rate when
limited liability was assumed
The court hold Geo Sos modified De-.
cIsinu that whore the shipper did
not choose which rate be should
pay then tho railroad might DO $50
b} setting forth The fact boz the bill
OF ladIug or by notifying the ship
per hy mail Boa The due course Of
business That is 90 say. the rail-
road company could NOT charge the
higher rate for purposes of revenue
aud assume to have accepted The
lower rate for the purpose of pay
inr losses.
The modification of the one
point which was suggested by Cor
don while 10 ala not affect the case
90 bar. might bee favorable 90 the
company iu other eases I'm an
cases where interstate commerce u.s.
affected. the state must follow the
rulings of the federal courts In
modifying the decision the court
believed that 90 was changing @ raj
ing which was Boa conflict with the
decisions of the federal courts.
n was anxious 20 get az the right
OF the Harris case. and ! did SO.
as believed, and as / think that
practically an of the lawyers Of the
state believe am convinced that
lawyers who have looked into the
case viii affirm my Judgment la
fun aud agree that the right law
was announced.