Omaha daily bee., 1905-11-17
MOODY ON PACKERS PLEAS
Attorney General Says Garfield Did Not
Premise Immunity to Witnesses.
TESTIMONY NOT USED BY GOVERNMENT
No Part Of Evidence Secured by
the Secretary was Submitted
to the Grand
Jury.

eral Moody today made statement with
] reference to the pleas in bar hled by the
! defendants in the indictment 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 It could be
given without affecting the interests Of the
government or infringing upon the just
| rights of the accused. The statement con-
tinues:
Ten separate pleas in bar have been
| fled each OF them alleging facts which
| it is claimed ought to bar the government
! from proceeding further in this case.
Eight OF these pleas are based on the
alleged conduct of Mr.. Garfield commits
| sioner OF corporations, in making an in
yestigation of the affairs of the defendants
in pursuance of the authority conferred
upon him by law, and in special obedience
to the resolution OF the house of repre-
sentatives requiring him to make such In
vestigation.
The resolution under which Mr.. Gar
field acted is as follows:
Resolved, That the secretary of COM
merce and labor be- and he is hereby re-
quested to investigate the cause Of the
low prices of beef cattle in the United
States since July l, 1908, and the alleged
unusually large margins between the prices
OF beef cattle and the selling prices OF fresh
beef, and whether the said conditions have
resulted I'm whole or in part from any con-
AIdCN NOHlplnhllOn III the lOTnl Oh TRUST
or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint
of commerce among the several states and
territories or with foreign countries also,
whether the said prices have been manipu-
lated In full or in part by any corporation
joint stock company, or corporation combi-
nation engaged in commerce among the
several states or with foreign nations; and
II 50 tC investig9 e the organization, capt.
talization, profits, conduct. and manage
ment Of the business Of such corporation
companies and corporate combinations and
70 make early report of his findings ac-
cording to law"
Pleas of the Packers.
Under the act creating the Department
of Commerce and Labor, the commissioner
OF corporations had the right to subpoena
and compel the attendance and testimony
OF witnesses and the production of docu-
mentary evidence, and to administer oaths;
but the regard for all persons who are
subpoenaed to testify or to produce docu-
mentary evidence, il is provided that Inn
mnunity from prosecution shall be given
poena except that they shall be liable for
perjury, for giving false testimony.
d me pea peas IN bar aliege in various forms:
eral defendants to attend under subpoena
ana to testify and to produce documents
o. That he waived the oath which he
was authorized to require Of them
90 That he promised them for what they
oia with respect to giving of testimony
and the production of documents, that they
should receive the immunity provided by
law and,
a. That the testimony thus obtained
from the defendants was delivered 10 The
department of Justice and to the district
attorney and by the latter used before the
grand jury to obtain the Indictment
Ii is stated by the government that Mr.
Iarneld did make the investigation required
by the resolution of the house of repre-
sentatives and that he did receive from
certain of the defendants, oral Information
anu access to the books of the defendant
corporations.
IL is hOwavar
ment that the Information and access to
Ine DOCKS were given voluntarily by the
defendants
Garfield Made No Promises.
The government denies in point of fact
mat Mr.. Garfield did compel the several
defendants to attend and testify and pro-
uuce documents before him, or that he did
subpoena any Of the defendants to appear
oefore him and testify or produce docu-
mentary evidence, or that he waived the
oath which he was authorized to require
oil them, or that he promised them any
immunity Whatever In the premises, or that
any evidence obtained from the defendants
was delivered to or used by the Depart
neht OF Justice or the district attorney
petore the grand jury which found the in
dictment
Garfield Testimony IL Not Used.
The attorney general asserts in positive
terms that none of the information OBJ
tained by Mr.. Garfield was used before
the grand jury. and further says that he
is informed by Mr. Garfield and believes
that at certain stages of the investigation
the defendants declined to give information
unless they were put in a position TO OBJ
tain the immunity provided 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 general, Mr.. Garfield alb
stained from pursuing the inquiry further
and made no other attempt to Obtain in
formation, documentary or otherwise, along
these lines.
After full conference with Mr.. Garfield
h. 80
pared by Mr.. Pagin, under the supervision
of the attorney general and with the as
slstance OF the district attorney, and will
be taken to Chicago and filed in the court
there next week.
No Papers We're Seized.
The seventh plea i'm bar urges that the
government unlawfully seized certain pa
pers of the defendants and submitted them
conferred upon them by the constitution.
The government denies that IL obtained
any reports otherwise than by the orderly
process of subpoena directed to the person
who had the custody of them.
The eighth plea sets up as defense the
fact that the government heretofore pro-
ceeded against the defendants by petition
under the Sherman act under which petit
ton an injunction against the continuance
OF the combination was issued about three
years ago and was affirmed last winter by
the unanimous opinion of the supreme
court the attorney general himself having
personally argued the case for the govern
ment in that court. and claims that by TAX
ing this action the government elected TO
pursue the civil remedies and is disbarred
from resorting to prosecution under the
criminal provision of the antitrust law
The government admits the facts. but
contends that they constitute no bar to
the criminal prosecution.
The answer prepared by the government
will raise a mixed issue Of law and fact
to be determined, not by the attorney gen
eral or the district attorney, but by the
court in which the proceedings are pending.
The government will resist these pleas
and demand a speedy trial of them, but
inE an opinion on them, as II would be
obviously improper for him TO do so while
the questions are pending in the district