Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1908-12-18
HARTMAN NOT
COMPELLED To
DESCRIBE POOL
KING AND ASSOCIATES
WIN SWEEPING VICTORY IN
SUPREME COURT.
KNOCKS GOVERNMENTS CASE.
Rate Commissions Hopes to Bring Out
Union Paeife's Relations with
Other Roads Blasted.
THREE JUSTICES IN DISSENT.

WASHINGTON, D. G., Dec. A.-In
an opinion by Justice Holmes, the SUI
preme court of the United States today
held that q. 81. Hartman and Otto
Kahn, the latter a New York broker,
should not be required to answer the in
terstate commerce commissions ques-
tons 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 it all
power of investigation.
Cross Appeals Filed.
The case came to the supreme court
on cross appeals by Hartman and the
government from decision of the circuit
court of the United States for the south
ern district of New York, holding that
Mr.. Hartman should be compelled to
make response to most of the questions.
It arose in connection witt the order of
the commission of November 10, 1906,
directing an inquiry into the combina-
ton of the Union Pacific road with such
other lines as the Southern Pacific, tn
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, L.
Northern Pacific, the Great Northern,
the Illinois Central, the Chicago Il AL
ton and the New York Central. This Or
der was very sweeping in character and
in nH tn 6ounlnn ho
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 d ques-
ton, to say whether he had owned any of
the Chicago & Alton stock which was
purchased by the Union Pacific and the
price of which had been fixed by him
self; whether portion of the stock Of
the Illinois Central had been acquired
by a pool Of which he was a member
with the view to selling it to the Union
Pacific; and whether the Union Pacific
York Central stock which was acquired
by the Union Pacific. He also declined
to state how much of the stock Of the
Atchison, Topeka & 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, ana 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 ques-
ton as to whether he had purchased
stock in the Union Pacific in anticipa-
ton of an increased dividend There
was also proceeding against Otto H.
Kahn. member Of the New York bank
ing house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., who
were the financial agents of the Union
Pacific, similar to that against Harri-
man. Mr.. Kahn refused to answer
questions covering the point upon which
Mr. Hartman declined to enter.
Much interest has been felt in the
case because of it's very great impor-
lance, and the announcement of the
courts decision which was made by
uSllCG 11OlU1SS DIS ASLCASu " Win
deep interest by those present in the
court. The opinion reversed the decision
of the lower court, insofar as it COM
PEELED responses, and affirmed the por-
ton in which the court refused to COM
pei such response. 1t was a sweeping
victory for Hartman and his associates.
Explain Purpose of Act.
Justice Holmes words on the subject
of the limitation of the commission s
power of inquiry were in part as follows:
1--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 upon
matters that might have been made the
subject of complaint. The main pur-
pose of the act was to regulate the in
terstate business of carriers and the sec
ondary purpose that for which the COM
sion was established was to enforce the
regulations enacted. In other words the
power to require testimony is limited as
it usually is in English speaking conn
tries, at least to the only cases where the
sacrifice of privacy is necessary-those
where the Investigations concern spe-
cific breach of the law"
Justice Harlan and Mckenna united
with JuStice Day in his dissent