The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1906-02-23
DENIES PROMISE
OF IMMUNITY
Commissioners of Corpo-
rations Garfield Was
On the Stand In the
Governments Be e f
Trust Inquiry.

Chicago, Feb. 20.-The packers con-
cluded the presentation of their evil
dence shortly after noon today in the
hearing on the immunity plea before
Judge j. Otis Humphrey, in the Unit
ed States district court. The govern
ment followed at once and Commits
sion of Corporations Garfield was put
on the witness stand by District At
torney Morrison.
Mr.. Garfield told how he met l.. c.
Krauthoff, general counsel for Armour
& Company.
Krauthoff asked him what use the
president would make of such infor-
nation as should be given the gov
ernment, and he assured Krauthoff
that the chief executive would do
what was right
In response to questions by Dis
trict Attorney Morrison, Commissioner
Garfield said he did not promise any
protection or that any information
secured would be held entirely conf
Dental. Garfield volunteered the
statement to Krauthoff however that
the purpose of securing this informa-
ton was to promote publicity; that
he, the commissioner would report
to the president and in turn the presi-
dent would report to the United States
senate. His department was not con-
nected with the department of JUS
tice and any information his depart
ment obtained would not be improp-
erly used, he told Krauthoff.
District Attorney Morrison then
put direct questions to Mr.. Garfield,
as follows:
Did you promise immunity to the
packers?"
"No."
did you say the information you
would receive would be entirely con-
fidential2"
mo"
f. Attorney Morrison then led Mr.. Gar
field to talk about the private car
business of the packers and he said
that Mr.. Meeker had told him he did
not think they should or ought to give
information as to that, because that
business was under the interstate COM
merce commission.
Mr. Garfield said he pointed out to
Mr. Meeker the uniformity of aver
ages on cost, sales, ETC., of the pro-
ducts of the packers.
Meeller answered. he said, by re-
marking that all the packers were try
ing to develop their business, that
they were not in combination and
were not violating the antitrust or
any other law.
Attorneys for the indicted packers
believe they scored another important
point when Judge Humphrey permit
ted them today during the hearing
to introduce letter written by Pres
ident Roosevelt to Attorney General
Moody June Is, 1905. For upwards OF
an hour District Attorney Morrison
fought with all the vigor at his COM
mand and such resources as Commits
sioner of Corporations Garfield who
is himself an attorney, could lend,
to resist the introduction of the let
JSP DuC DIT lu6 emu ana without even
listening to arguments from attorney
John S. Miller, the court ruled that
the letter could be read to the Jury.
Mr. Morrison took exception. The
whole letter was read from a printed
document. Part of the printed mat
ter had been underscored in ink in
the copy. The part underscored was:
with my approval, the department
of justice, with the assistance of the
department of commerce and labor
has been for some months endeavoring
to find out whether or not they can
obtain legal evidence of such wilful
and deliberate violation of the injunc-
tion by any individual. If the grand
jury now sitting in Chicago find in
dictInents against any individuals con-
nected with the packing corporations
it will be because, in their judgment,
such legal evidence or the violation of
the injunction has been laid before
them"
The winning of this additional point,
coming so closely upon the admission
of r. Dana Durand, the statistician of
the bureau of corporations, that the
bureau had turned over to the depart
ment of justice part of it's informa-
tion, gave apparently great satisfac-
tion to the packers and their attor-
neys.