New-York tribune., 1905-07-03
THE INDICTED PACKERS.

Without in any way prejudging the guilt OF
innocence of the meat packers indicted on sat
urday, we may take satisfaction in the work OF
the federal grand jury which has Tor nVe
months carried on the investigation resulting
In these charges. 1t is not often that Dody OIL
men with private interests like grand jurors
thus give themselves up TO continuous LABOR
for the public welfare. They set good ex-
annie by their diligence and persistence, and,
whether or not their findings are justified in the
courts. they have set precedent Of great value
in the enforcement Of the Interstate Commerce
and Antitrust laws
The only way to stop violations of these laws
is to punish the individual men who violate
them. The old saying that corporation has
no body TO kick and soul to save applies par
ticularly well to this situation. Corporations
willing TO break the law do not mind inJunctlons
and fines. They make enough money by their
disobedience to pay a percentage TO outraged
Justice. So long as the persons who do the
work can hide behind a company name law
breaking will 90 on. If the Amalgamated Burg
lars Trust could draw a herring across the trail
of the individual cracksman ands assume cor
porate responsibility for his operations, house
breaking would become a safe and prohtaDle
industry. The government is on safe ground
when it assumes that for every broken law
there is q personal Iawbreaker who should and
can be held responsible for the crime. Perhaps
In this case the right persons have not been
found That is to be seen at the trial. The
United States Circuit Court however, has found
a state of facts IN the packing industry which
il holds to be clearly criminal. Judge Grosscup
issued an injunction against these unlawful
practices and the Appellate Court sustained
him. The testimony taken by the grand jury
convinced il that these practices continued.
Here was no case OF innocent continuation or
old trade custom or slipped cogs in the work
ing of q great machine. Here was deliberate
persistence in crime, if anything at all, and
eager attempts were made TO conceal books
and keep witnesses out of the way. If, then,
the actions Of the packers violated the inJunc-
tion there were personal acts Of crime on the
part Of somebody. The corporation did not do
wrong Of itself.
The counsel for tie packers declares that they
have not violated the law, but have been en-
deayoring faithfully TO comply with it. If so, 1t
should be easy for them TO demonstrate the fact
before Jury. If, on the other hand, their cor
porations are found to be violating the law, 1t
may be safely determined that at least some
individuals are violating IT. Government by
Injunction" has been bitterly opposed by labor
men on the ground that it is an instrument
which restricts them unfairly in comparison
with their employers. 1t is time to show that
iniunctions are as ready and powerful in dealing
with the lawbrealIers working through great
Industrial corporations as with those working
through labor unions. The only way TO do this
is TO establish firmly the doctrine Of personal
responsibility, and for every corporate crime to
take action to find and punish the individual
criminal