The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-04-18

make. though they issue no subpoena
and receive no testimony or evidence
within the proper meaning OF tlose
words. the very fact OF the ifiXestiSd-
ton may of itself operate to prevent
the prosecution OF any offender for
any offense which may have been de-
veloped IN even the most Indirect
manner during the course of the IN
vestigation or even for any onense
which may have been detected by in
vestigations conducted by the depart
ment of justice entirely Independent
of the labors of the interstate COM
merce commission or of the commits
sioner of corporations-the only con-
dition of immunity being that the
offender should have given, or direct
ed to be given, information which re-
lated to the subject out OF which the
ofense has grown.
Hard to Get Justice.
IN offenses of this kind, it is at
best hard enough to expect justice
upon offenders. Our system of Grim
inal Jurisprudence has descended 10
us from period when the danger
was lest The accused should not have
his rights adequately preserved, and
it is admirably framed to meet this
danger. But at present the danger Is
Just the reverse the danger nowadays
is not that innocent men viii be con-
victed of crime, but that the guilty
man will go scot free. This is espe-
cially the case where the crime is one
of greed and cunning perpetrated by
man of wealth in the course Of those
business operations where the code of
conduct IS at variance, not merely
with the code of humanity and NOR
a hty. but with the code Is established
in the law It is much easier but
much less effective, to proceed against
a corporation than to proceed against
the individuals IN that corporation
e-cI4r sill Ia
the wrong-doing. Very naturally out
side persons who have no knowledge
of the facts and no responsibility for
the success of the proceedings are apt
to clamor for action against the in
vestigators. The department of justice
has most wisely invariably refused to
proceed against individuals unless II
was convinced both that they We're in
fact guilty and that there was at
least d reasonable chance of estab-
fishing this fact Of their guilt. These
beef packing cases offered one Of the
very few instances where there was
not only the moral certainty that the
accused were guilty but in which 1t
seemed, and. now seems, there was
sufficient legal evidence of the fact.
No Immunity Promised.
But in obedience to the explicit order
tions had Investigated the beef packing
business. The counsel for the beef pack
:
claim that any promise of immunity had
been given by Mr.. Garfield; as shown by
the following colioquy during the argu-
ment of the attorney general:
" Mr. Moody, dismiss almost with a
ward the claim that Mr.. Garfield prom
ised immunity. Whether this is any evil
denee of such promise or not, I do not
know and DO not care. Mr.. Miller (the
, counsel for the beef packers: There is
no claim OF it Mr. Moody; Then 7 was
mistaken, and I will not even say that
word
But Judge Humphrey holds that If
the commissioner of corporations land
therefore if the interstate commerce com
missioner) in the course of any investiga-
tons prescribed by congress. asks any
questions of a person not called as a wit
ness. or asks any questions of an officer
or of a corporation not called as q wit
ness. with regard to the action of the cor
poration On the subject out OF which pros
ecutiOns may subsequently arise, then the
fact of such questions having been asked
operates as a bar to the prosecution of
that person or of that officer of the cor
poratiOn for his own misdeeds. Such in
depreciation of the law comes nea surably
near making the law a farce. and there
1 fore recommend that the congress pass a
/ decIaratory act stating its real intention.
( (Signed-) THEODORE ROOSEVELT %
/ White House, April II. 1906