The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-12-15
HARTMAN WINS OUT
SUPREME COURT DECIDES AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE COM
 MISSION.
The court HoIan That Communication Has Not The Power To Press
 Questions Relative To
Prlvn9e Trnmaae1iona.

Private Transactions.
 Washington, D. C.. Dec, 14--In de- ciding today the case of Edward H. Hartman and Otto 1T. Kahn. vs. Inter state Commerce Commission, the Su- preme Court of the United States held that the commission Is not entitled. under the interstate commerce law. to press questions relative to private transactions. even. though they involve dealings in the securities of interstate railroads. when the investigation of which such questions are a part, has begun upon the commissions initiative.
 The opinion of the court was an- nounced by Justice Holmes and dealt with the refusal of Messrs. Hartman and Kahn to make reply to questions put by the commission in the discourse of an inquiry concerning the dealings of Mir. Hartman, as president of the Union Pacific Railway. in the stocks of other railroad companies, which many are competing lines. In the course of his opinion, Justice Holmes said that the commissions inquiries should be confined to cases fin which complaint had been made. He said that privacy should be proper Iy regarded in proceedings begun by the commission for its own purposes. He also said that the powers conferred III the fnLETHlAt9 C0kuInCECt law S4- ceed any which have ever been dele- gated by any constitutional body of law makers.
 In a dissenting opinion. concurred in by Justice Harlan and McKenna, Jus tice Day declared the effect of the opinion of the majority of the court would be to materially narrow the scope of the interstate commerce law, These three justices took the position that the questions of the commission. so far as they were sustained by the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York, were entirely proper under the law. and should have been answered by Harri- man anu Kahn.
 Justice Harlan went even further, and held that all of the commissions questions should have received re- sponses.
 Justice Moody did not participate in the case.
 The case came. to the Supreme Court on cross appeals by Hartman and the government on the decision of the Uni- ted States Court for the Southern Dis triet of New York, holding that Mir. Hartman should be compelled to make response to most of the questions It arose in connection with the order of the commission of November 15 1908, directing an Investigation into the combination of the Union Pacific, with such other lines as the Southern Pa cihc. the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe, the Northern Pacific, the Great Northern, the Illinois Central the Chi cago and Alton and the New York Gen. tral This order was very sweeping in character and intended to develop the facts regarding the community of in- terests between the Union Pacific an1 other roads.
 When MT. Hartman was put on the stand he declined fo say whether he had owned any Of the Chicago and AL ton stock, which was purchased by tho 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 8 member, with the view to selling 1t to the Union Pacific and whether the Union Pacific directors were interested in the New York Cen tral 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 Pa- clfc.
 The Circuit Court directed Mir. liar riman 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 MT. Hartman to answer a question as to whether he had pur- chased stock In the Union Pacific in anticipation of increased dividends There was also g proceeding against Otto Kahn, q member of the New York banking house of Kuhn, Loeb and Company. who were the financial agents of the Union Pacific, similar to that against Mir. Hartman,
 Much interest has been felt in the case because of its great importance and tho announcement of the courts decision, made by Justice Holmes. was listened to with deep interest by those present in court. The opinion reversed the decision of the lower court, inso- far as 1t compelled responses and af- frmed the portion in which the court refused to compel such response. It was a sweeping victory for Hartman and his associates
 Justice Holmes's words on the limi- tations on the Commissions power of Inquiry were in part as follows:
 We are of the opinion that the pur- poses of the act for which the Commits sion may exact evidence embrace only complaints for violation of the act, and Investigations by the Commission on matters that might have been the sub ject of complaint. The main purposes of the act was to regulate the Inter state business of carriers and the sec ondary purposes, that for which the Comm lssion was established, was to enforce the regulations enacted. In other words. the power to require tes- timony Is limited as 1t usually Is in English speaking countries, at least to the only cases where the sacrifice of privacy is necessary-those where the investigations concern a specific breach of the law
 Justices Harlan and McKenna united with Justice Day in his dissenting opinion.
 Commission Not Surprised.
 Washington, Dec. 14.--No surprise was expressed by the Interstate Com merce Communication at fha decision