The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1908-12-17
HARTMAN NOT
COMPELLED To
DESCRIBE POOL
RAILROAD KING AND ASSOCIATES
WIN SWEEPING VICTORY IN
SUPREME COURT.
KNOCKS GOVERNMENTS CASE.
Rate Commissions Hopes to Bring Out
Union Pacific's Relations with
Other Roads Blasted.
THREE JUSTICES IN DISSENT.

WASHINGTON, d. c., Dec. 14'-ln
IN opinion by Justice Holmes, the su-
IRENE court of the United States today
leId that f. II. Hartman and Otto
Kahn. the hitter n New York broker,
lhould not be required to answer the IN
ierstatc commerce commissions ques-
lions concerning dealings in stocks be-
tween the Union Pacific and other ROADS
to which they refused to make response
when the subject was under investiga-
ton in New York, Constituting the de-
cision of the court in a dissenting opin-
ion, Justice Day expressed the opinion
that the construction given the inter
state commerce law takes from 1t all
power of investigation.
Cross Appeals Filed
The ease came to the supreme court
on cross appeals by Hartman and the
government from a decision of the circuit
court Of the United States for the south
crn district of New York, holding that
Mr.. Hartman should be compelled to
make response 10 most of the questions.
II arose IN connection with the order OF
the commission of November ID, 1905,
directing an inquiry into the combina-
ton of the Union Pacific road with such
other lines as the Southern Pacitlc, the
Atchisou, Topeka n Santa Re, the
Northern Pacific, the Great Northern,
the Illinois Central, the Chicago " Al
ton and the New York Central This or
der was very sweeping in character anu
intended to develop the facts regarding
the community Of interest between the
Union Pacific and other roads, the prac-
tees and methods Of the roads, the rates
received, etc. 1t 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 qucs-
ion, to say whether he had owned any OF
the Chicago a Alton stock which was
purchased Ivy the Union Pacific and the
price Of which had been fixed by him
self; whether Il portion of the stock Of
the Illinois Central had been acquired
hy "A pool of which he was n member
with the view to selling it to the Union
Pacific; aud whether the Mon Pacific
directors were interested in the New
York Central stock which was acquired
hy the Union Pacific. He also declined
10 state how much Of the stock Of the
Atchlsou, Topeka y Sante Fe was owned
by directors Of the Union Pacific
Answer Order by Appeal.
The circuit court directed Mr.. Harri.
man to reply TO these questions, and he
responded by appealing to the supreme
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 n qucs-
ton as to whether he had purchased
stock in the Union Pacific In auticipa-
ton of am increased dividend. There
was also Il proceeding against ono IL.
Kahn. u IurHlbrr If the New ork bank.
mg house of kuhn. Loeb y CO., who
were The financial agents of the Union
Pacific. similar ~ luaJ against Harm
man Mir kAhu refused to answer
questions covering Tie point upon which
Mr.. Hartman declined 10 enter
Much interest has bccu irlt in the
case hpra1-r Of its very great iuIul.
lance, anal the announcement of the
courts decision which was made by
IuNurr Numo, Was listened 10 with
deep interest 10y those present in the
court The opmuu reversed the decision
uI the bower court, insofar as it com
urilpl Responses. and affirmed the Urr
Uuu lu which tho cUUrI refused Du cNo-
ped such RESPONSE ii was .wropiug
victory for Hartman ANA his associates,
Explain Purpose OF Act.