Omaha daily bee., 1906-01-30
PLEA OF PACKERS
Continued from First Page.)

CONTINUED from First Page.)
whether we were to be protected in case
OF dishonest special agents He assured
me of this and said that we were pro-
tected by the law. the source of his in
formation being secret. l asked him about
some of this Information getting to the
newspapers and even to the Department
OF Justice. He told me to have no ap-
prehension on that subject. | then asked
what use the president of the United States
wished to make Of the information. He
answered with emphasis that of course
the president of a great nation would not
allow anything to happen which anyone
could take exception TO. He further said
that where figures and data came from
unquestionsble sources the oath was not
necessary. but IL anything came up in re-
gard TO the oath he would let us know.
On his assurance that all information
would be kept lnvolate In the bureau OF
corporations 1 answered some questions re-
garding the prices of cattle and similar
matters. We talked some further, but 1
think that was the substance of it."
What did you say your clients would do
as TO the production of the evidence?"
asked Attorney Miller
81 said that as l understood his position
as to keeping our information confidential
would advise my clients to do as he
asked. He said that he intended to make
a report so accurate in detail that there
would be no question regarding it and for
that reason he wanted to look into the
books and still reserve the right OF an
oath"
Mr.. Krauthor declared that acting on
the statements OF Commissioner Garfield he
| hnA aAN CxwsffN nvNI
| Morris & Co and Armour & Co. TO submit
| their books to the investigation.
Cross-Examination by Mr.. Morrison.
On cross examination by District Attor-
ney Morrison. Attorney Krauthoff stated
that at the time he met Mr.. Garfield he was
representative of the National Packing
| company as well as a representative of
Armour & Co. Attorney Krauthoff ad-
mitted that he had written the chapter OF
the National Packing company but that
! he had not been its attorney for over. a
| year
] Attorney Morrison then asked the wit
| ness:
| AS a lawyer. you know IL Mr.. Garfield
| issued a subpoena upon a witness and
! the witness refused TO answer to Il. he
was not bound to attend and he would
not be compelled 10 be present, didn't your
| II knew that the whole power OF tn,
| United States was vested in him TO compe
and his demand was backed by the Who'll,
government"
NJ this point q long wrangle follo1e,
District Attorney Morrison declaring tina
the witness was arguing I'm his answers
The court, however. ruled that the wit
ness could explain his answers il he wIshe,
and that he could not be limited to tn
verbiage OF a question.
Attorney Krauthon then explained tina
he knew Mr.. Garfield could not send
man To Jail for not observing his subpoena
But he said that he also knew that MI
Garfield could go into court and compe
the appearance or the answering OF ques
tions
You also knew" asked the district al
torney, didn't you. that If the witnes
refused to answer Mr.. Garfield could cleo
whether he would go to court about /
didn't you?"
II knew that was the law" replied II
witness.
And you also understood Mr.. CARTEL
could not even compel witness to take a
oath?"
II imagined the commissioner would r
port to the court that such were the CO..
: ditions, but / never looked up that pa
( OF the law"
The court adjourned at this point in Il
examination.