The Birmingham age-herald., 1905-11-17
MIR. MOODY DENIES
 THE ALLEGATIONS Makes Answer to Contention
 of Packers
TO KEEP UP PROSECUTION
Says the Information Given to Com missioner Garfield Was Not Used for the Federal Grand
 Jury.

with reference to the pleas In the par filed by the defendants in the indict- ment for and against the beef packers pending in the district court at Chicago. He said he believed that the public was entitled to some accurate information with regard to the facts and that 1t could be given without affecting the interests of the government or infringing upon the just rights of the accused.
 The statement continues;
 Ten separate pleas in bar have been filed, each one of >~em alleging facts which 1t is estimated ought to bar the government from proceedings further in this case.
 Eight of these pleas are based upon the alleged conduct of Mir. Garfield, com missioner of corporations, in making an investigation of the affairs of the de- fendants in pursuance of the authority conferred upon him by law, and in spe- cia obedience to the resolution of the house of representatives requiring him to make such investigation.
 "The resolution under which MT. Gar fled acted is as follows:
 Resolution Under Which He Acted.
 Resolved That the secretary of com merce and labor be, and Is hereby re- quested, to investigate the cause of the low prices of beef cattle in the United States since July l, 1903, and the Alleged unusually large margins in the price of beef cattle, and the selling prices Of fresh beef and whether the said cond- tions have resulted in wifJle or in part from any contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise. or conspiracy in restraint of commerce among the seV- eral states and territories, or with Tor eign countries; also whether the said prices have been manipulated in whole or in part by any corporation. joint stock company or corporate combination en- gagged in commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, and if so, | to investigate the organization, capital | ization profits, conduct and management | of the business of such corporation, com | panies and corporate combinations, and | to make early report of his findings ac- | cording to law.
 | Under the act creating the department of commerce and labor, the commissioner of corporations has the right to subpoena and compell the attendance and testimony | of witnesses, and the production of docu- mentary evidence, and to administer oaths but with regard to all persons who are subpoenaed to testify or to produce 1 documentary evidence, 1t is provided that l immunity from prosecution shall be given | to them if they obey the commissions subpoena except that they shall be liable for perjury for giving false testimony
 Allegations Made By Defense.
 "The pleas in bar allege in various forms:
 q That Mir. Garfield did compel the I at a,,l Har G11h h. poenas. testify and produce documents be- | fsVe him.
 | '2 That he waived the oath which he was authorized to require of them. | ''3 That he promised them for what they did with respect to giving testimony, ! and production of testimony, that they should receive the immunity provided by 1 law; and
 '4 That the testimony thus obtained from the defendants was delivered to the department of justice. and to the district attorney. and by the latter used before l the grand jury to obtain the indictment.
 "It Is stated by the government that MT. | Garfield did make the investigation re- | qured by the resolution of the House | of Representatives. and that he did ob- | tain certain of the defendants oral infor- nation as to the accounts or the defehd- ant corpora ton.
 | Tt is however, contended by the gov ernment that the information and access | to the books were given voluntarily by the defendants.
 "The government denies in point of fact l that Mr. Garfield did compel the several defendants to attend and testify, and produce documents before him, or that he did subpoena many of the defendants
 to appear before him and to produce doc umentary evidence or that he waived the | oath which he was authorized to require | of them; or that he promised them any | immunity whatever in the premises or | that any evidence obtained from the de- fense was delivered to or used by the de-
 partment of justice or the district attor- ney before the grand jury which found 1 the indictment.
 Information Was Not Used.
 "The attorney general asserts fh the | most positive terms that none of the in formation obtained by MT. Garfield was l used before the grand jury, and further | says that he is informed by MT. Garfield l and believes that at certain stages of the | investigation the defendants declined to l give information unless they were put In | position to obtain the immunity pro | vided by the act of Congress. and required by the constitution of the United States; | and that when such instances occurred, acting after conference with the attorney | suing the inquiry further. and made no | other attempt to obtain information, documentary or otherwise, along these lines.
 After full conference with Mir. Gar field the answer of the government has been prepared by Mir. Pagin under the
 supervision of the attorney general, and with the assistance of the district attor- ney and will be taken to Chicago and filed | in tha rot1rt early next week
 | ",The seventh plea in bar urges that the government unlawfully seized certain pa pers of the defendants and submitted | them to the grand jury contrary to the rights conferred upon them by the consti-
 tuition The government denies that it ob- tained any papers otherwise than by the | orderly press of subpoena directed to
 the person who had the custody of them
 The eighth plea sets up as defense the fact that the government has hereto
 fore proceeded against the defendants by a petition under the Sherman act, under
 which petition an injunction against the continuance of the combination was issued about three years ago, and was affirmed
 last winter by the unanimous opinion of
 tines upreme court, the attorney general himself having personally argued the case for the government in that court. and claims that by taking this action the gov ernment elected to pursue the civil rem edies and is disbarred from resorting to a prosecution under the criminal provis- ion of the antitrust law,
 Constitute No Bar
 ,rhe government admits the facts but contends that they constitute no bar to a criminal prosecution.