New-York tribune., 1906-04-19
TrSSAGE ON PACKERS.
,prgDENT R4PS JUDGE.
r, Humphrey Decision Caused
Miscarriage of Justice.

--1nrH
~ SIS such as 10 make that win abso-
.aT sbortiVe.
& based largely on a letter TO the
-. ,rou Attorney General Moody, in
attorney General reviews the pro-
- the case Of the government against
80 ,sczers. The President says it is clear
- .-,.icisrn attaches TO Commissioner Gar
,rns, he did was in pursuance of a duty
!, min, by Congress. He refers sharply.
- - the decision of Judge Humphrey,
.,s, Congress could not have foreseen
90 s..,s,on. and that he can hardly believe
..s ming Of Judge Humphrey viii be fol-
..ss BY other Judges
s..ls-es that such Interpretation Of the
,tst placed on il by Judge Humphrey
-,assr-ably near making the law a
and he recommends that congress pass
,.-.,orv set stating its real intention. The
- also requests Congress TO confer upon
~--,-,neut by statute the same right OF ap-
.-.-,,ral cases which the defendant now
,-here The merits OF the case have not
4 - determined.
Is NIL text Of the message follows;
=. Senate and House OF Representatives:
4 bA-,5- b-s herewith a letter OF the Attorney
II treios
- Trnired states against The individuals and
1 -..s.one commonly known as the beef
/ -ssss-s and commenting upon the decision OF
/ .s.s Tn6ge Humphrey. The result has been
/ Miscarriage Of justice. II elearIy appears IroIn
l5s..sr III the Attorney General that no crit
i = vrhsiever attaches 10 Commissioner Car
| - what he did was in strict accordance with
l ~ Sisr and IN pursuance Of q duty imposed on
II - nv congress- which could not be avoided,
~ course Congress. IN passing the Martin
1 --,rrion could not possibly have IOresesn the
4 ,s.Tor OF Judge Humphrey.
i D .his Interpretation by Judge Humphrey
n ne V-U OF Congress. es expressed IN legisla-
I =, ss such as 10 make that viii absolutely
s-~-1o-runstely. there Is grave doubt whether
Il "a government has the right OF appeal from
/ * decision Of The District judge. The case
/ n Illustrates the desirabiltty OF comforting
II --rr the government The same right OF appeal In
4 nina cases on questions OF law which the
/ stsndAnt now has IL all cases where the de-
! ,s-isrf had not been put 81 jeopardy by trial
.g,u the merits of the charge made against him
4 ~ laws Of many of the states and the law OF
H ne District OF Columbia, recently enacted by the
4 Congress, give the government the right OF ap-
Z pea 4 general law Of the character indicated
should certainly be enacted
4 MED OF NEW IMMUNITY LAW.
4 Furthermore, 81 is very desirable 70 enact
A av declaring the true construction Of the eX-
<ying legisaIion 50 far as IL affects immunity.
II can hardly believe that the ruling OF Judge
tHumphrey viii be followed by other judges, but
n il should be followed the result would be
either completely 10 nullify very much and pos
kEb.y The ma part of the good 10 be obtained
4hom the Interstate Commerce law and from the
Il law creating the Bureau Of Corporations in the
3DspEument O. Commerce and Labor or else
Frequently tC obstruct an appeal 10 the criminal
AVS 5y the Department OF Justice There seems
Io bs 70 good reason why the Department OF
Isusaoe Tie Department Of Commerce and Labor
i and me Interstate Commerce Commission each
4 4r,
1 lis own powers without undue interference with
1 the functions Of the other Il IS, Of course, nee
4 ssssg un6er the Constitution and the laws,
4 Ilg persons who give testimony or produce evl-
iGE as witnesses should receive immunity
iron prosecution Il has hitherto been supposed
~ the immunity conferred by existing laws
A ls only upon persons who, being sUbpRnaed.
- given testimony or produced evidence as
3llnesses relating to any offence with which
- We're OF might be charged.
4 bui Judge Humphreys decision IS IN effect
r. II either The Commissioner OF Corporations
s MS duty or the Interstate Commerce Com
sslon does lis by making the Investigations
men they are required 10. though they issue
Subpoena and receive no testimony OF evil
II nee Witlln The proper meaning Of these words,
very 1act Of the investigation may Of itself
s.Ie 10 prevent the prosecution Of any Of
zee 4or any oIence which may have been
II aslopeo In even The most indirect manner dur
me course of The Investigation or even for
II ouence which may have been detected by
Slgauons conducted by the Department OF
--oe enllrely independently Of the laboTs Of
u interstate Commerce Commission or Of the
missioner of Corporations, the only coRdi-
II % immunity being that the offenders should
gwen, or have been directed 70 give infor-
i -A which related 10 the subject out Of which
II lhenee has grown.
i otences o. this kind Il is at the best hard
n e 70 execute Justice upon offenders. our
II ~ OF criminal Jurisprudence has descended
ron period when the danger was lest
u elhsed should not have his rights ade-
S2 preserved. and II IS admirably framed
II - u-s Danger. But at present the danger
-, NE reverse; that is. the danger nowadays
=" ma innocent men viii De convicted Of
oui thar the guilty man viii go scot free.
especially the case where the crime is
greco and cunning. perpetrated by a
~ wealth. iD The course of those business
I~-olS where the code Of conduct is at
n A0 Nol merely with the code Of humanity
n IoTeAiF, but with the code established in
- 0 The land i is much easier. but much
4 e-sltfe, 10 proceed against q CORPORATION
Proceed against the individuals in that
I~etoA VINO are themselves responsible for
\ "-s-e rte ao.ng Very naturally outside per-
4 rasrolL LsEe 10 knowledge Of the facts and
-Y'-'s-14lly 1Or the success Of the pro-
Malviduals
department. OF Justice has most wisely,
4 ls'e reused thus 70 proceed against iadi-
- ir ieSS y was convinced both that they
i ,aso,-SS- e. guilty and that there was at least
IN -e g,-T .Ilahce Of establishing this fact OF
A. of - 4Aese beef packing cases offered
r~H,
~ me moral certainty tfat the accused
- sl-ily, but what seened-aEd now
IBu, 11lelelt legal evidence Of the fact.
arrae- 5l'eo.elce 10 the explicit order OF the
4asg,s~S.e--e e-e Commissioner OF Corporations had
- 80 - NE beef packing business The
Iu-h- ~ the beef packers explicitly admitted
- vas no claim that any promise Of i'm
Isar -a4 oeen given by Mr.. Garfield as
-, - ~ io-loVing colloQuy during the ar
i ~ -, - me Attorney General:
- ] dismiss almost with
- CAIN thar Mr.. Garfield promised i'm
Iast helher there is any evidence or
- p'VHiise or not ] do not know and do
4 ssrs- -3-ef f 'the counsel for the beef packers)
l egs- icy Then was mistaken and VIII
1 I,os-st Humphrey holds that II the Com
\ yisss, y y Corporations faEd therefore If the
II ssv !. -uinInerce COmmission) IN the course
n a ,-,tsl gan0us prescribed by Congress
u legs e-eSnQEs ~ person not called as 4
17crstto eshS amy questions of an officer of a
II H. - s-..- Hol called as witness. with regard
nnafsa = FaHHF