The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-01-19
Would Prove This by Testimony
Of Garfield.
LATTER TAKES NOTES.
Beef Men Assert Former Hear
ing
Was i'm the Nature Of Private
Investigation.

Chicago, Jan. 19.-Attorney John S.
KILLER. speaking for the packers. con-
tinued his preliminary statement in the
United States court this morning in the
Beef Trust case He created something
Of a sensation 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 prosecution.
He declared further that last March
CommisN Noner Garfield declared that he
would consider the seeking of facts by
his agents. in the offices of the packers
as if they had been developed before him
personally and had been presented in
his presence at a formal hearing.
Commissioner Garfield who was in the
court room when the statements We're
made by the attorney began writing
rapidly on a pad of paper taking notes
Of the statements made by Mr. Miller
Mr.. Miller said in opening his speech;
"A meeting was held at the Chicago
club i'm this city on April 13, 1905, be-
tween Commissioner Garfield, l.. C.
Krauthof and Samuel Roberts. The
question arose as to the relations sald
to exist between Commissioner Car
ton was to be i'm 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 if it arose he would settle it, He
said that he desired to conduct an in
VestigaiOn but without violating any
rights of privacy. dr. KrauthOf sug-
gested that he might advise the PACK
ers who were his clients to resist the
right of the commissioner to publicly
investigate private business, bat that
ne was disposed to ask the packers
not TO contest the matter
''The question then arose as 10 the
method of 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 if
the defendants had testified before
him personally.
The attorney then contended that
under the law although the packers
We're not sworn and it was the order
of Commissioner Garfield that they
should not be, the evidence of the
men was no loss evidence. and within
the immunity law.
AT the noon recess of the court
Commissioner Garfield was asked if
he would make a statement concern
ing the remarks of Attorney Miller
and replied.
s'I would rather not talk of the mat
ter. 7 am witness in this case and do
not care to discuss it before am call
ed. I do not care to say whether / can
explain this matter or not"
Attorney Brown. in opening referred
to the magnitude Of the business done
by the packers, and their right, to have
in Chicago, which he called the stock
center of the world, protection.
District Attorney Morrison offered
an objection to this. ct seems to me. %
he said, that they are going clear out
of this case
"You may go on" said Judge
Humphrey.
Mr. Brown then entered upon a de-
scription of the business of the packers
of the stock yards. He went at great
length into the details of the investiga-
ton conducted by Commissioner Gar
fold