Justice and the E.F. Hutton Case

I was shocked to read Trott’s reply to The Times editorial (May 6), in which he defended the Justice Department’s action with reference to the E.F. Hutton fraudulent action.

To hear an attorney in our Justice Department defend its action on the basis that it is better to regain money for the banks--evidently individual depositors did not lose any money--than to see that confessed criminal action is punished is a very strange defense by attorneys paid for by taxpayers’ money. I presumed that the Justice Department is in existence to see that justice is done for the rich and poor alike.

For this reason I feel the judgment used by the Justice Department in the E.F. Hutton case is inexcusable, unethical and lends credence to public opinion that if an individual or company is rich enough, he or it can escape legal action and punishment. In my opinion, a mere fine, which wreaks little hardship in this case, on the payee is not punishment sufficient to the evil committed.

Trott said in his letter: “That is the message. Justice was done.”

I say to him that because he says it does not make it true. It seems to me that the department is becoming highhanded and arrogant and certainly its good judgment, if nothing else, can be seriously questioned in the matter of the fraudulent action of E.F. Hutton.

SARAH P. MILLER

Los Angeles