The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-10-03
MIGHT SUE
PAPER COMPANIES.
UNIQUE PLEA ADVANCED BY
COUNSEL FOR THE TRUST.
MI. Flanders Urges Court to Consider
that Immunity Promised by Federal
Law to Witnesses Would Not Pro-
tect Them from Action Action by
State on Information Secured.

An eloquent argument, yet unique in
it's basis, was that of j. G. Flanders,
attorney for the General Paper COM
pany, in the United States court at
st. Paul today, replying to Frank B.
Kellogg, who yesterday demanded for
the United States that the company,
its associates and officers, reply under
oath to certain questions and produce
desired records Of their business. The
government would, thru answers to
these questions, ascertain the exact re-
lation Of the General Paper company
to the various paper mills, and demon
strate that earnings of all the mills
are pooled by the combine and divided
pro rata among the various associated
paper mill companies.
Mr. Flanders argument was that his
clients had a right to refuse to answer
the questions asked and to refuse to
so doing they might incriminate the
various Minnesota companies in the
General Paper company. namely the
Hennepin Paper company, the North.
western Paper company and the ltasca
Paper company, and lay them open to
Immediate prosecution by Minnesota Of
ficials for infringement Of Minnesota
laws. = =. + .N ~ =
Mr.. Flanders claimed with fiery elo-
quence and in a long, technical argu-3
ment, that hos clients were immune
from granting the request OF. the fed
eral government by federal Legislation
in 1903 and federal constitutional
right, that the defendants could. not be
made to give any evidence which would
convict themselves. =
"Facts,". said Mr.. Flanders, "can.
not be. pressed from the breasts of the
witnesses which would show an infrac--
ton Of the laws Of teh state of Min:
nesota.' - >
MI. Flanders also argued that in pass;
ing on an immunity clause. to the inter-
state commerce act, such clause would.
have to be observed i'm Interpretation
for state as we'll as federal courts. IT.
During his argument he said: EHThe
prosecution would wiring from the
Northwest Paper company testimony
which would ruin the company; ruin the
interests of the men who have placed in.
their business the Accommodations Of a
the ground and the primeval forest of
the, northwest, the product which has
made their concerns what they are.'
HThe answers to the questions asked
tend to subject the defendants of the
Hennepin Paper company, Northwest
ern Paper company and Itasca Paper
company to penalties, fines and forfeit
ureS," continued, MIR.
.oCurt Asks a Question.
"Can it be,V asked the court, s'that
IN agent, servant, or officer Of a cor
poration can at the election Of the cor
poration be prevented from testifying
where an agent of an individual or the
individual could not be?
IAN Individual" answered Mr..
Flanders, "can confne all his import
ant business secrets to himself. A cor
poration cannot confne it's affairs to
one person. There is, therefore, a
marked difference between the two.
Can I, Flanders, be asked to go on the
witness stand and disclose secret in
formation Of my client on questions
asked by an opposing attorneys No.
So a priest to whom a confession has
been made: cannot be asked to disclose
the secrets of the confessional, and 50
is the information not to be- given out
which has been given in confidence
from a principal to an agent, or a cor
Eporation to one Of it's offcers.''H
The :argument today took up the ex-
PLANTATION Of countless former decisions
and was Of a very technical character
I as a whole. @ > d
Wilson Bros.' Town Made Dress Shirts