| Show I I I HISTORY OF TH THE THES S SANTA fE CASE if Important Information Made Madi ft Public by Authority of oft t The President f Ui UiL L l REVIEWED BY ATTY AllY GENERAL GENERALi 3 i c noo ov lf Tell Him He Jl Was W as 1 i l I Right S r fe Against t Paul Morton S I i i Washington Dec 17 IT Some orne Import ImportAnt ImportAnt k 4 Ant history his lory concerning the action of ot the government against tim tha Atchison Tope Toper r f k Hanta l Ic Fe e railway company was wat ii 4 made public today tOlla by Authority ol ot President It wn IM In the Iho S form torm of ot tw two letters under date of ot the c S and lust respectively the tho one OM on cL being written by Ally Atty Att Gen Moody and am J JF the other by b the president The letters lettera I quote quota court give consid considerable i t erable ruhIe information the ac nc b f trI Zion of at the president nt und inI the attorney I t general In the till Santa anta Pa Fe cast casl particularly particularly with reference to the work of ot tho the v in 1 Harmon of Cincinnati MI 1 und Ind Judson J Jcl on of St louls who nho were Jp 4 ft 3 employed by the government to toI Inquire I fc I Into the facts of oC the ca u anti and who sub p c frequently withdrew from It because t j their as liS to the prose pros prosecution t c cution of the Santa Fe I o were not notI I adopted Mil MIt MOODYS Tho The history of ot the banta Fe Fo case caso Is isI t I reviewed In III in the tho ie letter by Mr Moody ti i the attorney position po Is la 1 I by b the tho president ont In the sec second S end ond letter lettel I You Yon ct me the attorney gen Ren general geni t oral eral replies to furnish you with a II ai i i concise history of ot the case lse against the tha J Atchison Topeka Santa Fe 10 railway I i I I In i which that company was wan charged chanted with unlawful rates and practise In Inthe Inthe the transportation of ot coal for Cor the Goto Coto i ti rado ratio Fuel Juel Iron Iroll company and nd n a 1 state mont moat of the bearing of the tho recent de tie decision tiei t i 34 1 damn of at Judge Philips oC ot the circuit ell States for the ther I J court of ot the United Unit I r V Western district of ot upon the T case care and especially upon the action i which you have heretofore taken re at nt atThe p p The attorney recites the In Investigation and aTUl the report of ot the Inter interi i i state commerce commission which re report reI I port lOrt Rl the tho roads rouda practise was 4 l 1 In violation of oC a restraining order Is In Iii V sued the railway company KM March h 1902 upon a l bill hili In lii equity I brought by ly b tho tue United States Tho The attorney general reported to the tho president pre l dent that proceeding under tho the re repA pA order or er could not be main maui rt HT Under ordinary conditions the let letter lettel letter m ter tel the tho advice which I gave cave 1 have bae been regard regarded C you ou probably pt would conclusive against the I 4 ni niI ed td by you OB as i ii undertaking of at anY un action based upon 1 the tho restraining order Jut But the circum circumstances J Mt t 1 stances will wilt ba bo extraordinary Very i 1 le I great Brent public Interest insisted In the taso caso aroused ed by hy the fact that Mr 4 Morten a member of our cabinet hart had 1 S been vice of ot the railway com corn company charged charle with tho the management pany PillY i I fit rif the during durin ft a I l rt ot of the time timet t Ip tho the practises wore were complained of ot otI I ji I 1 therefore there ore suggested the tho employment or of special counsel of ot eminence and you V directed their employment I Tho Instructions to that date Inte leb I eh r 3 H 14 last lalit presented two opinions 4 In lit what manner manlier If It any the tho 1 Injunction In hi this case win was affected l by bythe byI I tile the decision of Jt the Ille supreme court in InI I the tho fit 0 railway calla caso fc 4 4 the tho United States tnt and second cond In tn case coal cool Is III within the tho scope of the i j I Injunction at lit all by reason of ot the tho g n I i oral cral clause ChIllS In the tho decree enjoinInG tho the thet t Fe Je O company from Crom transporting any other Interstate truffle at I t less hess than i ii b i Its published rules rates whether this gen general geni i i eral Injunction to ob 1 the tho law has hasi t i j I i tiny liny force torce or virtue l III It In view Iel of ot I parts of ot tIm the recent reent decision of ot the su suo Ironic court In the beef trust case COUNSEL DIFFERED WITH V MOODY i r The special counsel tIm the attorney attorneYS S I yit general nays saye entertained all an opinion t upon these two questions different from that I 1 hail had expressed to o you y u anti and that I by your direction waa Willi ac nc acquiesced i li it ced In lit for to I tho the PUM O O of ot further 1 i I I Later ater difference arOMa o between 1 i i counsel and atil th attorney n general as to J 1 j whether an Information for tor contempt Vif of the tho Injunction bo he tiled against aln t t 1 the managing offIcers of nC f the tho corpora corporation i 1 I unit tion On April 11 it 1 O counsel held tt that upon Investigation of or the tho charge of ot 1 i t contempt evidence evl might bo be i i Ing In to chow whether the managing of ot ott I 1 t hind had been guilty oC ot contempt or orn n I not It t i Moody adds I tl The nature i of or f the tha evidence which might be expect expected ed cI wan not lot Indicated l W On May 19 11 lust last the general 1 r wrote the tho counsel that thero there j was no testimony any except k i L the minor and ami Mr h who I I might claim Immunity anti and that aa a t I Ii i L MCH rl Ripley and Morton president t 1 i anti vice Ico of oC tho the Santa Fo Fe at atI I I that time pome iome eVidence ought to pro pre precede l i S cede an nil accusation cf ot contempt of ot I court 1 The rhe Utter latter reviews the tho contempt pro proceedings i Fi brought against the company i Itself by b I tho the lr direction and Judge Philips order on Dec Deo 4 last Jast iI 1 i I j the Judge Jud e Phil Philips Philp p 1 cited In this connection the opinion t v 1 of or tilt the supreme court of or the United J I t States III In tho the beef trust case and 1 held that tho the record furnished no noc c 1 foundation found for Imputing to j i I 4 Ripley and anil Morton president ent and vice Iee t president of the tho toad road nt at that time any i t I j personal responsibility for Cor the alleged i I 1 I violation of o tho the commerce J I law The flie attorney generals letter con colt concludes t ii 11 i clinIc nit ns follows I 1 I I have stated that Judge Philips it lb i i I sued the restraining order drawn Into IntI II t I i the tho question by iy these tot for lori qi II i t I i t contempt The order wan wait Issued by him hint himI l I after full argument by counsel for Cor the II I United Stales and for Cor the tho com coat coatI I f 1 I puny pun Undoubtedly lila Ida decision In tin th i t contempt CUSel was WitS inconsistent with Ii his hll action upon the original bill In fl l t 1 I S equity praying the tho Injunction a de Ie demurrer J to which be he overruled subsequently f ll i I 11 fluently Issuing I the restraining order ordera a t nut lint his lila first decision the IIi 4 court hall hail decided the tho cases of oC th the I Missouri Hallway company vs 1 I j the United Untied States State and Swift vs ye the t United and Judge Philips re ro regarded reo roI these two decisions as all fatal to tt toI I I a tho the validity V of ot o the tM th retraining order I II I hardly need to say ay that In my opinion i L the tile decision of pf Judge Philips Is li n a 1 cor cori i I reet of the law la because h caupe nt as n nou ast t f you ou know It Is Ie In conformity with the I II advIce given to you at the very er thresh threshold tj 41 old of these proceedings proceed nail nt at all tunes times from then until now believed by 1 I 1 h i 1 mo rot to be sound In any 11 event went the de Ie decision Is ie final because th government has no appeal upon any question of at this kind kindi i a i i 1 i j I k The rho presidents letter to the attorney i ral I The White House Washington Dec Dee 1 t 1 i I I Iter 15 1905 Sir I have received your lot let letter lotter ter of or Dec 13 1903 The rho facts therein set lIet forth prove In lit conclusive ve fashion that thai you were absolutely ab right In the tb i position po you OU have hau all nil alone aloni taken both as ns regards proceedings against tho the j company Implicated limit itself and antI as us re ro regards regards gards the further proceeding proceedings proposed propose the Iho of ot the company In III Including including Paul Morton recently a n member memo mem ber br of or my cabinet In my letter of ff June 12 last In reply to lo yours ours of oC June C G CIn GIn In you ou II II I Die tho course which has hus actually been taken and Ind which hUi been so instilled by the event elent I I 1 wrote you that In my m Judgment as all In III your our own you ou would have hac been wholly without Justification In proceeding 1110 In Individually individually i against the tho as ns a there rk 18 not a particle of evidence against thorn them themI I I added One of oC the Mr Morton Is te a n member of my cabinet This fact Is not to be allowed to shield him him nor or on the th other hand Is It to bu b allowed lo to cause cau e him him to be singled out or the with whom he lie associated to be lell out for rot attack I directed you to lo proceed against the company and Ind of or course to against any Individual if 11 any testimony wan wall produced showing that he had Mil been personally guilty either by act net or connivance statIng that I agreed With Witt the doubt you had expressed sel selas as to whether there was wis good goud ground for Cor proceeding even een against the companies but that I also agreed I with you that wo we should try to obtain the Judgment of ot the tho court on the question as 18 to whether tho the Injunction was sufficient antI whether therefore there was wa any nh ground of ot action what whatever whatever ever The result shows that thai you were right In your doubt whether the Injunction was waH sufficient to cover the case cae I 1 nm nm much pleased with the remarks quoted by h you In which Judge Philips speaks of fIr the attack made on Paul Piul Morton Morion Your lour original advice to tome me ate WItS Willi to jo direct that the tho evidence be before tore fore the tile special counsel who had ad aLl advised action net Ion against those tho and other Individually should be sub milled to Judge Philips who had Is Issued Issued issued sued the th Injunction to see ee whether action could be taken against any of or them personally I refused to take this action netlon Judge Philips who had before him nil all the evidence which was WM before the special counsel In his deci decision sion exactly covers the point which would have been raised hal had I 1 followed your advice He Ito says alls This Instance has attracted d considerable public at nt ate attention because of or the sensational as association sedation of oC the Iho name nil me of oC Paul Morton the vice president of the defendant company with tho the transaction The record In the tha cane cae e however Including the evidence taken before the Inter Interstate interstate state stale commerce commission falls fails to lo furnish any foundation for fOI Imputing to this gentleman any personal responsibility responsibility for the alleged violation of ot the Interstate commerce law Tho Tha decision of ot the court Murt there fore Is not only that you OU were absolutely absolutely right In the advice you ravo avo me roo as ns to lo the corporation but further furthermore furthermore furthermore more and explicitly that there thero was no possible ground for tor action against Mr oIl Morton No 00 action taken In addition to that which you proposed could properly have hao been taken The course actually taken was wall absolutely proper roper and the decision fleeMon of ot the thc court and the th opinion of the Judge above quoted show that to have taken the course proposed ed by hy tho the special counsel would nave have been unjust l Sincerely yours ours Tn ODOnE VI LT |
