New-York tribune., 1905-11-17

commissioners subpoena. except that they shan Oe
LIABLE % TGe ea PeuTg y bg f9T lese e m vious
Mr.. Garfield did compel the several deIeodIlaSs @
documents before him: CD that he waived the oatn
which he authorized 10 require oi it re 1Sl
spect to The giving of testimony and RrodnGon 3I
provided by law; and 90 that the testimony thus
obtained from the defendants was oenNeTeo 20 c.ro
ney. and by the latter used before the grand jury
to obtain the indictment NJ o,,rs.,d
did the investigation required by me fesoiu u
did -eceVe from certain of the defendants oral in
formation and access to the BOOKS OF the oeiehua'
II is, however. contended by the government that
the information and access 10 the booSs were gwen
voluntarily defendants
The aovernment denies in point of fact that Mr.
and testify and produce documents tefore him, or
that he did subpoena any of the defendants to ap-
pear before him and testify produce documentary
evidence: or that he waived the oath which ne was
authorized 70 require Of them or that ne o
that any evidence obtained from the defendants
tice or the District Attorney before the grand jury
which found the indictment
The Attorney General asserts in the most posi1iSe
terms that none of the information OBTAINED % Dg g
Mr. Garfield was used before the grand Jury. id aId
further says that he is Informed ey MI @GaLnsId @
and believes that at certain stages of the nvestga
unless thew were put in a position to obtain the
immunity provided by the act of Congress and re,
onaf wen it6 the kt4oTnaV General Mr. GARFIELD
refrained from pursuing the inquiry further and
made other attempt to OBTAIN Information, docu-
uentary or otherwise, along those lines
After full conference with Mr. Garfield, the an
swer of the government has been prepared by MT
Pagin under the supervision of the attorney Cen
eral and with the assistance OF the District Attor
ney. and will be taken to Chicago and hled IN the
court there early next week.
The seventh plea in bar urges that the govern
1nent unIawfuIly seized certain papers of the de-
PENDANTS and submitted them to the grand jury
contrary the rights conferred upon them by the
Constitution. The government denies that it OBJ
tanned any papers otherwise than by the orderly
process of q subpoena directed to the person who
had the custody of them.
The eighth plea sets up defence the fact tllat
the government heretofore proceeded against the
defendants by petition under the Sherman act
under which petition injunction against the con
tinuance OF the nbinatioa was issued about three
years ago. and affirmed last winter by the
unanimous opinon Of the Supreme Court, the At
the case for the goI eminent in that court ana
claims that by taking this action the government
elected 10 pursue the civil RENE lies and Is deearreo
from reSorting 10 a prosecution under the criminal
provision of the antitrust law.
The government admits the facts, but contenCS
that they constitute bar to criminal prosecu-
tion
The answer prepared by the government will
raise i mixed issue OF Law and fact, to be deter
mined MOI by the Attorney General or the District
Attorney. but by the court in which the proceed
ings are pending
The government will resist these pleas in bar
and urge speedy trial of them but the Attorney
General Fefrains from expressing any opinion upon
them, as il would be obviously improper for him
to do while the questions pending in the
district court