The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-05-05
IMMUNITY BATH
+ PLEA A FAILURE
Bechtel's Attack on His Indict-
ments Lacks Foundation,
Says Judge Brooks. 80
Effort of Former Insurance Off
Gals to Escape Prosecu-
tion Fails.

Former Minneapolis INSURANCE.. Off
eials now under Indictment for alleged
irregularities will have no Immunity
bath. - Judge F. C. Brooks today de-
stroyed their hopes along this line when
he overruled W. +. Bechtel's motion
to quash the indictments against. him.
The attack, On the indictments was
made on the ground that they were
based on evidence that Bechtel gave
before Insurance Commissioner o 'Brien,
which he asserted was privileged.
Bechte S attorneys asked that the ques-
ton be certified to the supreme court
at once, but Judge Brooks took the re-
quest under advisement and the ease
will undoubtedly come on for trial be-
fore him next Monday morning.
In announcing his ruling the court
stated that to his mind the only real
question at issue was whether or not
the testimony given by the defendant
before Insurance Commissioner o 'Brien
was voluntary. If it was voluntary he
held that it was proper material for
the grand jury to receive as evidence,
and he said that from the showing made
before him he could not hold that the
appearance or testimony of Bechtel has
been compulsory.
-: Of Vital Importance.
The decision on this motion was of vi
tai Importance to all interested in the
morning was attended by. a large num-
Der of attorneys and others directly
and indirectly concerned. The defend
ant was represented by Robert Jamison
and Victor sWelch, and additional argu-
ment was made for him by Charles w.
Somerby. County Attorney, Al J.
Smith presented the state s argument.
oil fnr 81 1,o,,.
ments,in favor, Of the motion upon the
following contentious: ~.
First-That under the circum-
stances and In view of the law author
izing the insurance commissioner to con
duet Investigations of insurance com
panles and examine witnesses, under
oath. Defendant Bechtel did not have
the right to refuse to testify on the
constitutional ground that it might in
,criminate himself
! Second-That Bechtel's appearance
before the commissioners was not vol
untary and that he did not give volun-
tary evidence since he was ordered to
do SO by the commissioner and shis4res
fusal meant an ACKNOWLEDGMENT of
guilt. * <,,E
Third-That the use Of his testimony
given before the commissioner as a
basis of grand jury indictments was an
invasion of his constitutional rights.
Opposing the Motion. .-
In answering these arguments County
Attorney Smith ignored the clever bu
what he termed immaterial argument!
. of his opponents and simply addressed
himself to what he said was the only
essential question:: Was the defend
ant s appearance before COMMISSIONS
o Brien voluntary He cited numer
Gus authorities to sustain his position
and argued: '..''' - ~7--~-:'
First-That the commissioner had nt
authority to compel Bechtel's appear
ance and testimony r. -.-f
Second--That no process compelIin,
him to appear was served upon him
and that he did appear and teaif1
freely and without claiming his consti
tutional privilege.
Third-That there was no shown,
commissioner by Bechtel tended to in
eliminate him.