Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1906-04-19
MESSAGE ON PACKERS CASE
President Addresses Congress on Subject Of
Recent Decision at Chicago.
CHANGE IN CRIMINAL LAW NECESSARY
Commissioner Garfield Acted Properly
Under Instructions and Govern
ment should Have Right TO
Appeal from Ruling.

WASHINGTON. April 1s.-in special
message delivered to the congress today
President Roosevelt declared that the
recent trial of the beef packers in Chi
cago was miscarriage of justice" and
that the Interpretation placed by Judge
| Humphrey on the will of congress lis
such as to make that will absolutely
abortive."
The message. which is most sensational
in character is based largely on a letter
to the president from Attorney General
Moody, in which the attorney general re-
| views the case Of the government against
| the packers. The president says It is
clear that no criticism attaches to Com
missioner 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 congress could not have foreseen such
a decision and that he can hardly believe
that the ruling OF Judge Humphrey will
be followed by other judges. He declared
that such Interpretation Of the law as
that placed on It by Judge Humphrey
comes measureably near making the law
a farce" and he recommends that con-
gress pass a declaratory act stating its
real intention. The president also requests
congress 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 case have
not been determined.
The full text Of the message follows:
In the Senate and House Of Represen-
tatives: ] submit herewith a letter of the
attorney general, enclosing statement of
against the individuals and corporations
! commonly known as the Beef Packers
and commenting upon the decision of Dis
trict Judge Humphrey. The result has
been a miscarriage of justice. 1t clearly
appears from the letter from the attorney
general that no criticism whatever at
| taches to Commissioner Garfield; what he
did was in strict accordance with the law
and in pursuance of a duty imposed on
him by congress, which could not be
avoided, and of course, congress in pass
ing the Martin resolution could not posi-
bly, have foreseen the decision of Judge
Humphrey. But this Interpretation by
Judge Humphrey of the will of the con-
gress as expressed in legislation is such as
to make that will absolutely abortive.
Unfortunately there is grave doubt
| whether the government has the right of
Judge
Of comforting upon the government the
| questions of law, which the defendant now
has, in all cases where the defendant had
not been put in jeopardy by a trial upon
the merits of the charge made against him.
| The laws of many of the states, and the
| enacted by the congress, give the govern
ment the right of appeal A general law
| of the character indicated should certainly
| be enacted.
Furthermore, it is very desirable to enact
| a law declaring the true construction of
the existing legislation so rar as it affects
| immunity. l can hardly believe that the
| ruling of Judge Humphrey will be followed
by other judges; but il it should be fol-
| to nullify very much, and possibly the
major part OF the good TO be obtained from
3, s,,4o 1tuts 1u nd ba
law creating the bureau of corporations in
| the Department of Commerce and Labor;
| or else frequently to obstruct an appeal to
the criminal laws by the Department of
| Justice. .. s.ofs..
l. Immunity Sometimes Necessary:
There seems to be no good reason why
the Department of Justice, the Department
of Commerce and Labor and the Inter-
! state Commerce commission each should
not, for the common good, proceed within
it's own powers without undue interference
with the functions of the other 1t is, of
course, necessary under the constitution
and the laws that persons who give testi-
| mOny or produce evidence, as witnesses,
should receive immunity from prosecution.
| 1t has hitherto been supposed that the
upon persons, who, being subpoenaed, had
given testimony or produced evidence, as
! witnesses, relating to any onense with
which they were, or might be charged.
But Judge Humphreys decision is in effect,
that, if either the commissioner of cor
porations does his duty or the Interstate
Commerce commission does 1t, by making
the Investigations, which they by law are
required TO make, though they issue no
subpoena and receive no testimony or
deny evidence, within the proper meaning
of those words, the very fact of the in
vestgation may, of itself operate TO prevent
the prosecution of any offender for any
offense, which may have been developed
in even the most indirect manner during
the course Of the investigation or even for
any offense which may have been detected
| by Investigations conducted by the De-
partment of Justice entirely independently
Lob Int. gHHFHF. zoo
commission or of the commissioner of cor
porations-the only condition of immunity
being that the offender should have given,
or directed to be given, information which
related TO the subject out of which the
offense has grown.
In offenses of this kind IL is at the best
hard enough to execute justice on Of
tenders. our system Of criminal juris-
prudence has descended to us from period
when the danger was lest the accused
should not have his rights adequately
preserved, and 1t is admirably framed to
meet this danger.
SOciety's Rights Invaded.
The danger nowadays is not that innocent
men will be convicted of crime, but that the
guilty man will go scot free. This is espe-
cially the case where the crime Is one OF
greed and cunning perpetrated by man OF
wealth in the course of those business oper-
atlons where the code of conduct is at Vari-
and morality, but with the code as estab-
lished in the law of the land. 1t is much
against corporation than to proceed
against the individuals in that corporation
who are themselves responsible for the
| wrongdoing. Very naturally outside per-
sons who have no knowledge of the facts
| and no responsibility for the success of the
| proceedings are apt 10 ClamOr for action
! against the Investigations. The Depart
| ment of Justice has most wisely invariably
| refused thus to proceed against individuals
| unless IL was convinced both that they
| were In fact guilty and that there was at
| least reasonable chance of establishing
| this fact of their guilt. These beef-packing
| cases offered one of the very few instances
/ where there was not only the moral GER
| tainty that the accused men We're guilty,
! but what seemed and now seems sufficient
| legal evidence Of the fact.
| But In obedience to the explicit order OF
! the congress the commissioner Of corpora
| tions 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 fol-
lowing collOquy during the argument of the
| attorney general:
| Mr.. Moody dismiss almost with
! word the claim that Mr.. Garfield promised
| immunity. Whether there is any evidence
OF such promise or not do not know, 1
! do not care.
Mr.. Miller (the counsel for the beef
| packers)-There is no claim TO il.
| Mr.. Moody-Then / was mistaken and 1
will not even say that word"