The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-03-22

should be suspended because they we're
compelled to furnish evidence concern
ing the matter in the Indictment. ana
under the law such furnishing Of eV1-
denee gives them immunity The law
under consideration for the cons5ruc-
ton Of which the court Is called upon
to decide, is the commerce and lapoI
act. It Is clear that the primary puf-
pose Of this act was 70 enable congress
to provide, through the channel or OH
cials charged with the execution CT the
laws. remedial legislation. The act ls
q substitute for one of the most cherish
ed rights Of the American citizen when
is the right to remain silent When
Questioned about any subject the an
swer to which might incriminate MIN
1t is conceded that the privilege amend
ment to the constitution can not De Ia
ken from the citizen without giving 70
him something equally valuable IN re-
turn The privilege OF the amendment
permits a refusal to answer a questloh
relating to the offense. The privilege
must be claimed by the witness at the
time. The immunity flows to the Wit
ness without any claim on his part
'It is contended that the defendants
in this case were volunteers because
they haggled with Garfield at times
debated. resisted. gave less than ne
asked AID withheld some things ne
record does show that. but the Iacl re-
mains that every approach was mace
nv the government Garfield made MS
demands. and it does not. to my lnind,
destroy the character of the compulslon
under which they acted that the &C.
PENDANTS, after having considered the
had no legal right to resist stiH debated
with the commissioner in the nope OF
inducing him to take something less
than he originally demanded.
Garfield Did the Mischief
"Garhefd came to the defendants and
held UP before them the powers OF ms
Office. They did not 90 to MIN ana
volunteer anything. Now, since the
defendants volunteered nothing but
gave only what was demanded by an
oficer who had the right to make the
demand and gave in good faith under
a sense of legal cOmpulsion, I am OF
the opinion that they were entitled TO
immunity.
Judge Humphrey then entered upon
an elaborate discussion OF the conten-
ton by the government that the Wit
nesses did not give under compuIslon
because they did not give under what
is known in law as testamentary COM
pulsion. He said that he could add
nothing to what had been adduced by
way of argument on that subject. but
was clearly of the opinion that the best
Judgment to be had from all the au-
thOrities is that the subpoena is use
less and superficial thing after the
parties are together.
me I0rudl statement declaring III
favor of the individual defendant was
then made by the court.
Immediately following the decision
District Attorney Morrison said
IT viii not make any record now in
regard to the motions for new trials or
an appeal I do not know whether I
am entitled to an appeal or not I
shall have to ask time to look it up. ="
I'VE ask for judgment on the YER
dict said Attorney Miller And I
make a formal motion that the de-
PENDANTS. the individuals, be dis
charged"
THAT is allowed" said Judge Hum
phrey. They are discharged That
goes in the verdict"
The attorneys for the packers plain
ly showed their pleasure at the de-
cisiOn.
Attorney Morrison said: "Of course
I have no criticism to offer. I have
argued the case as I saw the law and
thought that my view was correct.
Somebody always has 10 be wrong,
and this time, I see, at least I have
heard. that I am wrong. All the for
NAL motions for a new trial will be
made later