The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-02-02
WRANGLING OYER
PACKERS WITNESS.
Lawyers and Federal Court Argu-
ing Over Lyman and His
Talk with Garfield.

Chicago. Feb. s2.-Long legal argu-
ments marked the opening Of the pack.
sers cases today. It was commended
by District Attorney MORRISON qEie thar AT
National Packing company, wasSnot q
proper witness because he was mot
party defendant, nor. is the company
with which he was formerly connected
one of the companies against, Which
an Indictment was returned. -
Mr.. Lyman is said to be the star wit
ness for the packers. He is now head
of the American Glue company.
It was claimed by the attorneys for
company was included in the indict-
ment among several companies which
were mentioned as "several others.
The arguments over the admissible
ity of the evidence Of Mr.. Lyman con-
sumed nearly two hours.
The attorneys for the packers de-
clared that they wished to have Mr..
Lyman testify regarding his converse
tions with Commissioner Garfield at tho
time the commissioners arrived in this
city to commence his Investigations into
the packing industry. -, @.5@ +
Court Asked Questions. nj
After the arguments had been in
progress for more than two hours, the
court commenced to put questions. He
addressed himself first to the district
attorney, saying: Gs. 49,. s..si,. Y
eff it is true that the defendants in
this case sat on the board of directors
of the National Packing company, of
which Lyman was the president, he was
their agent, was he not?''
"Not at ALL replied District Attor-
ney Morrison, |he spoke only for him
The court leaned back in his chair,
: e II really. real hoped that you gentlemen
would have, a clear argument to put
before me this morning. a.
- What Packers Can Prove.
"We can show" said Attorney Mil
ler, who is acting for. the packers, g that
this Garfield report was used before the
grand jury. before which Mr.. Lyman
was s9.g witness the prova +h,+4,, os,xaa 1,an,
Humphrey. 2t' $r.@< : %~@~a
can repRi tsye MI II N Miles, tes very VIII VIII
show that the very matters given t.
Mr.. Garfield, relating to the Nationa
Packing company, were brought out be
fore the. grand jury thru Mr.. Lyman
and. that the Garfield report was use,
before the grand jury by. District At
LYMAN BIZ.
District Attorney Morrison declare,
that the arguments had raised the ques
ton of whether a corporation can hav
Immunity. He declared that the onl
way it could obtain immunity was fo
one of its officers to produce books an
papers of the company under oath.
"Well," said Judge Humphrey, "i
Garfield talked to this witness abou
these defendants, and how he was t
get the books and papers, his test
mony is Competent
''spreading Immunity
stI do not see by what process o
reasoning the court. arrives at tina
conclusion" replied District Attorne
i. Morrison. :, & If it is to be that b
talking to any man in the company
3 Mr.. Garfield gave immunity to all, "
9 are spreading immunity about like
l pestilence. In answer to Mr.. Miller,
e will say that this Garfield report cam
; to me like any other public docume1
:; which had been published for week
and I used it as such.'
J elf it had not been settled by tt
courts that corporations can have in
= munity, some Of the evidence whic
- has gone in is In error said Judg
!! Humphrey. ~
t at has not been settled,'' reptile
Ii the district attorney, 'tbut if the pc
! sons get it in this case, suppose tt
u corporations might as well have it.
y have not yet, however, heard reasc
y based on any rule of evidence why tn
- testimony of Lyman is competent