Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1906-01-25
BEEF TRUST TRIAL:
Attorneys for Packers Outline Theii
Defense in Court.
TO PROVE THEIR CLAIM BY GARFIELD
They Insist That Information on
which They Were Indicted Was
Furnished Government Under
Promise of Immunity.

Chicago, Jan. 20.--Attorney John 5.
Miller, speaking for the packers, con-
tinued his preliminary statement in
the United States court Friday morn
ing. He created something Of a SEM
sation at the commencement OF his
remarks by stating that he would
prove by the admission of Corporation
Commissioner Garfield while on the
stand, that the packers in this case
are entitled to immunity from prose-
cution. He declared further that last
March Commissioner Garfield declared
that he would consider the seeking OF
facts by his agents, in the Offices OF
the packers, as If they had been de-
yeloped before him personally and had
been presented in his presence at
formal hearing. ~
Commissioner Garfield who was IN
the court room when the statements
were made by the attorney began
writing rapidly on pad OF paper
taking notes Of the statements made
BY Mr.. Miller. Mr.. Miller said In open
ing his speech: YEA
IA meeting was held at the Chicago
Club in this city on April 1S, 1905 be-
tween Commissioner Garfield, L. U
Krauthoff and Samuel Roberts. The
question arose as to the relations 70
exist between Commissioner Garfield
ana the packers II the Investigation
was to be in the proper line Of privacy.
Mr.. Garfield said that the question
Of what the government was, or was
not entitled to might come up and
that IL 1t arose he would settle It he
said that he desired to conduct an in,
yestigation but without violating any
rights Of privacy. Mr., Krauthor sug-
rested that he might advise the pack
ers who were his clients to resist the
right Of the commissioner TO publicly
investigate private business but that
he was disposed to ask the packers
not to contest the matter. The cues.
ton then arose as to the method Oh
getting the information and how the
work Of the agents Of the commissioner
would be. considered. Commissioner
Garfield replied that the information
would be the same as II the defend
ants had testified before him person
ally"
The attorney then contended that
under the law although the packers
were not sworn, and 1t was the order
Of Commissioner Garfield that they
should not be, the evidence Of the men
swas no less evidence, and within tns
immunity law. Attorney Miller con
cluded his address at noon and was
followed by Attorney George w
Brown. also for the packers
Attorney Brown continued mis- state'
ment until the adjournment OF court.
He Followed much the same lines Of
argument as was pursued by Attorney
Miller, declaring that the promises ne
declared we're made by Commissioner
GARFIELD were in themselves under the
law q protection for the packers from
further prosecution under the indict'
ndents.
At the conclusion Of the day an al
iournment was taken until Monday
morning, when the attorneys for th'
packers win continue their statements
At the noon recess Of the Govt Com
missioner Garfield was asked Il b
would make a statement concerning
the remarks OF Attorney Miller an
replied z. would rather not talk Q
the matter. l am a witness IN thi
case and DO not care TO DISCUSS Il be
/, fore am called. DO not care to a.
. whether can explain this matter Q
not
sew hallway Etne oBensa-
carthAss. No, Jan. s2.-Throur'
passenger train service Wus inauEu
rated Sunday On TIE Whits Rir1r a
. vision Of the, Missouri Phclao-Iro'
: Fornfain syutcm recsnily comrist.