The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-04-19

PflmelI I1e ptBut u AUpcul " SEtE1
lnal Cases; Also to Put Tru COnstrue'
ton on the Laws as They ATect Inn
munlty From Prosecution-Says Judge
Humphreys Decision Comes "Measur-
abb, Near Making the Law . Farce
-NoCIaIm OF Any Promise or Immunity
vAsHYGToN, April ls.-President Roose-
welt cent a special message to Congress
to-day advocating legislation that would
nreven, any Federal Judge from holding,
a District Judge Humphrey did in the
trial Of the beef packers at Chicago, that
information offered bydefendants in Federal
antitrust cases rendered them immune
from prosecution. The President also REQ
omnenis legislation giving the Govern
nent the right Of appeal in criminal cases.
Accompanying the message was q letter
from Attorney General Moody enclosing
statement Of the proceedings in the beef
psckers' cases, containing comments upon
Judge Humphreys decision.
In the course Of his message the PreEi-
dent expresses the belief that other Judges
will not follow the ruling Of Judge Hum
phrev. The latter g Interpretation, he holds.
comes measurably near making the
~anti-trust law a farce, and makes the will
dCongress absolutely abortive. Mr.. Roose-
vet generates James R. Garfield, United
States Commissioner of Corporations, from
the criticism that he promised immunity
to the accused packers, He asserts that
Mr. Garfield in his dealings with the packers
onlv followed a duty imposed Upon him by
Congress-.
The President recommends the passage
Of legislation giving the true construction
Of the laws under which the packers were
tried so far as they affect immunity from
prosecution. Judge Humphreys decision.
he SAYS, means in effect that il the Com
missioner of Corporations, or the Inter-
state Commerce Commission, makes an
Investigation, the very fact Of the ~investi-
CATION may prevent the prosecution of
blenders.
ne pApIb SEt tit 'clN Nlic 'ih1t 'ihtiS
seened TO be legal evidence of the guilt Of
ihe beef packers who we're freed by Judge
Humphrey. He also contends that counsel
for the beef packers explicitly admitted
that there was no claim that MIR. Garfield
promised them immunity. and quotes an
admission 10 that effect from MIR. Miller,
one Of the counsel for the accused men.
Since. in the Presidents expressed opinion
The Interpretation of Judge Humphrey
came near making the law a farce, he rec
onmends that Congress pass a declaratory
act stating it's real intention.
INF PRESIDENTS MESSAGE.
The text Of the message follows:
10 he Serote and House of Representatives;
4 submit herewith q letter Of the At
toney General. enclosing a statement OF
the proceedings by the United States against
the individuals and corporations, COM
monty known as the beef packers and
commenting upon the decision Of District
Judge Humphrey. The result has been a
miscarriage Of Justice. 1t clearly appears
from the letter of the Attorney General
that no criticism whatever attaches to
Commissioner Garfield; what he did was in
strict accordance with the law, and in pur-
suance If a duty imposed on him by Con-
gress which'cou not be avoided; and of
course Congress. in Passing the Martin
resolution. could not possibly have fore
seen the decision Of Judge Humphrey.
But This Interpretation by Judge Hum
phrey If the will Of Congress, as expressed
In legislation, is such as to make that will
absolutely abortive. Undoubtedly there
Ia pra-.a lo,ibt rhafhar the GnVaTnrnant
has the right Of appeal from this decision
n the District Judge. The case we'll il
~lQstrates the desirability of comforting
upon the Government the same right OF
appeal IN criminal casee, on 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
NJ the charge made against him. The
Avs If many If the States and the law
81 the District Of Columbia recently en-
acted by the Congress give the Govern
nent the right of appeal. A general law
Of the character indicated should certainly
he enacted.
Furthermore. it is desirable to enact a
AZ declaring the true construction of the
existing legislation 20 far as il affects i'm
Hunity can hardly believe that the
ruling If Judge Humphrey will be folio wed
bFother Judges, but if it should be followed
Tho result would bs either completely to
huHtr very much, and possibly the major
Fart Of The good to be obtained from the
interstate law and from the law
creating The Bureau of Corporations in the
RECRUITMENT Of Commerce and Labor; or
ese frequently TO obstruct an appeal to the
ulninaI laws by the Department OF Justice.
there seems to he no good reason why
I've Department Of Justice, the Department
o. lommerce and Labor and the Interstate
commerce Commission each should not,
%f The common good, proceed within it's
VNn Powers without undue interference
WIN the functions of the other.
It Is, Of course, necessary under the
constitution and the avs that persons
NO give testimony or produce evidence
V witnesses should receive immunity
Non prosecution. II has hitherto been
supposed that the immunity conferred by
1S'lng law was only upon persons who,
~As subppnaed, had given testimony or
pOouoed evidence, as witnes yes, relating
any offence with which they we're, or
alsht be, charged. But Judge Humphreys
eVhlon Ii in effect, that II either the Com
missioner Of Corporations does his duty,
. VI The Intare.1 raa--o- ra-a,,I;1o