The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-04-19

ton may Of itself operate to prevent
the prosecution Of any offender for n
offence which may have beer developed Id
eve the most indirect manner during the
course OF the investigation, or even for
any offence which may have been detected
by Investigations conducted by the Depart
meut Of Justice entirely independently OF
the labors Of the Interstate Commerce
Commission or of the Commissioner Of Cor
porations-the only condition Of immunity
being that the offender should nave given
or directed to be given information which
related to the subject out OF which the
offence had grown.
SIN offences of this kind IL is at the best
hard enough to execute justice upon
offenders. Our system Of criminal juris-
prudence has descended to us from a period
when the danger was lest the accused should
not have his rights adequately preserved,
and 1t is admirably framed to meet this
danger. But at present the danger is just
the reverse; that lie, the danger nowadays
ie, not that an innocent man will be con-
victed Of crime, but that the guilty man
will go scot free. This is especially the case
where the crime is one Of greed and cunning,
perpetrated by a 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
morality, but with the code as established
in the Law Of the land. II is much easier,
but much less effective, to proceed against
a corporation than to proceed against the
individuals in that corporation who are
themselves responsible for the wrongdoing.
Very naturally outside persons who
have no knowledge Of the facts and no re-
sponsibihty for the success Of the proceed
ings are apt to clamor for action against
the individuals. The Department Of jus
tice, most wisely, invariably refused thus
to proceed against individuals, unless it was
convinced both that they were In fact guilty
and that there was at least a reasonable
chance Of establishing this fact Of their
guilt. Those beef packing Gases offered
one Of the very few instances where there
was not only the moral certainty that the
accused men wore guilty, but what seemed
and now seems sufficient legal evidence
OF the fact.
But In obedience to the explicit order OF
the Congress the Commissioners Of Corpora
tons had investigated the beef packing
business. The counsel for the beef packers
explicitly admitted that there was no claim
that any promise Of immunity had been
given by Mr.. Garfield. as shown by the
following colloquy during the argument
Of the Acknowledgement:
Mr.. oody-sss I dismiss almost with a
word the claim that Mr.. Garfield promised
immunity. Whether there is any evidence
Of such a promise or not. I do not know and
T do not care.
Mr.. Miller (the counsel for the beef packers
There is no claim OF il.
Mr.. Moody-Then I vas mistaken, and ]
will not even say that word.
But Judge Humphrey holds that If the
Commissioner Of Corporations land there
fore il the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion) in the course Of any Investigations
prescribed by Congress asks ahy questions
Of a person not called asa w~itrfess, or asks
any questions of any officer of a corpora
ton, not called as a witness, with regard to
the action Of a corporation on a subject
out of which prosecutions may subsequently
arise. then the fact Of such questions hav-
ing been asked operates as a bar to the
prosecution Of that person or Of that officer
Of the corporation for his " misdeeds.
Such Interpretation of the laws comes
measurably near making the law a farce;
and I therefore recommend that the Con-
gress pass a declaratory act stating its real
intention. Theodore hoosENELl'
The White House, April II, 1905
HOUSE HAD ALREADY PASSED BILL. ASKED
FOR.
Commenting upon the recommendation
Of the Preeider. in his message Upon the
beef trust prosecution, that remedial
legislation be enacted, Mr.. Lacey (Rep.
Iowa., said:
THE President is a day too late for the
fair. The House yesterday passed the bill
which he asks for"
The bill referred TO reads:
Be il enacted. dc: That in all criminal
prosecutions the United States shall have
the same right Of review by writ Of error that
lie given to the defendant, including the right
to q bill Of exceptions. provided that on
such writ Of error it shall be found that, There
was error in the ruling Of the court during
the trial a verdict in favor Of the defendant
shall not be set aside.
Section lI.~That this act shall take effect
and be in force from and after its passage, and
ahall annlC RI all DnndinP cases,