Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-04-18
SEVERE ON JUDGE HUMPHREY.
His Interpretation Of the Law
Makes Abortive Will of
Congress.
Can Hardly Believe That His Ruling In
This Particular Case Will be Fol-
lowed by Other Judges.

udy, iIeStutHt hooSeHtlt utcldlts inc
result of the recent trial OF the beef
packers in Chicago was "miscar-
riage OF Justice and that the inter-
probation placed by Judge Humphrey
on the will OF Congress us such as to
make that will absolutely aboriive.'
The message, which is of most
sensational character, Is based large
~ on a letter 10 the president
from Atty. Gen. Moody. IN which the
Encouragement reviews the proceed
ngs OF the case OF the government
against the beef packers. The presi-
dent says II is clear that no criticism
attaches to Commissioner Garfield. as
what he did was In pursuance OF a
duty imposed on him by Congress. He
refers sharply, however to the decision
of Judge Humphrey, saying that Con-
gress could not have foreseen such a
decision and that he could hardly be-
leve that the rulings OF Judge Humph-
rey will be followed by other judges.
He declared that such Interpretation
Judge Humphrey comes measurably
near making the law farce" and he
recommends that Congress pass a
declartory act stating its real nten-
ton. The president also requests Con-
gress to confer upon the government,
by statute, the same right OF appeal,
In criminal cases, which the defendant
now enjoys, where the merits OF the
cases have not been determined.
TENT OF MESSAGE.
The full text of the message fol-
lows:
ITO the Senate and House Of Repre-
sentatives:
II submit herewith a letter of the
attorney-g general, enclosing state
ment of the proceedings OF the United
States against the individuals and cor
poEatlons commonly known as the
Beef Packers, and commenting upon
the decision Of District Judge HUM
phrey. The result has been mis-
carriage OF justice. Ii clearly appears
from the letter of the encouragement
that no criticism whatever attaches to
Commissioner Garfield; what he did
was In strict accordance with the law
and IN pursuance OF duty Imposed
he avnideg and nf course 'N" ron~re n ~" n,
passing the Martin resolution could not
possibly nave toreseeh the decision or
Judge humphrey
CONGRESS- WILL, ANNUIJ,ED
But this Interpretation by Judge
Htpt,p1,raU Of bo ufin 40 fnYtu
as expressed IN legislation IL such as TO
make that WIZ absolutely aboruVe IN
fortunately there Is grave doubt wheth-
or the government has the right of APP
peal from this decision or the district
Juhke me case wen demonstrates the
uesirapliily OF conterring upon the
government tne same right OF appeal
ih crimlhal cases, on questions or law,
when the defendant now mas, IN all
cases where the detendant mas not
peen put IN jeopardy by trlal upon
merits or the charge MADE against
MN Inc laws OF many OF tne states,
anu Wy Jaw VI ,he Dls,Ilct oi Noiufhpia'
recently enacted py the congress give
the government the rlsht OF appeal
senefai law or the character lhdlcat-
ed sho,iiu certainty De enacted
ru'thethho,S' u ~ VERY desirdple 10
struc.ioh OF tne eNisting leslslation' SO
Lar us A" ahec's immunity
OPINION OF RULING.
can hardly DelieVe mat the ruling
or Judge Humphrey VIII be Followed
Dy othet Judges put VI IL should pc
followed the result would be either
completely to nullify very much and
possibly inc major part OF the good
10 De Obtained from the interstate
commerce law ana from the law Gre
ating the bureau or corporations In the
department OF commerce and Rbor,
or else frequently 10 oDstruct an appeal
10 the criminal laws by the department
Oh justice. Inere seems 10 be no good
reason why the department OF justice,
the department OF commerce and labor
ana the interstate commerce commits
SION eacn shoulh not Tor the common
good, proceed within It's own powers
without uhdue interference with the
functions OK the other II is, OF course.
necessary under the Constitution and
me laws that persons who give tes-
umony or produce evidence as Wit
nesses should receive immunity from
prosecution, II has hitherto been sup
Existing laws was only n vU,r nerso Ds
who, being subpoenaed had given tes-
tirnony or produced evidence, as Wit
nesses, relating to any offensc with
which they We're or might be charged.
But Judge Humphreys decision is, In
effect that, If either the commissioner
of corporations does his duty or the
Interstate commerce commission does