Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-02-02
THEPACKERS' HEARING
LONG LEGAL ARGUMENTS MARK
ED ToDAY's PROCEEDINGS.

CHICAGO February 2-Long legal argu-
ments marked the opening of the packers
case today. 1t was contended by District
Attorney Morrison that Jesse p Lyman,
former president of the National Packing
Company. was not a proper witness be-
cause Lyman was not a party defendant,
nor is the company with which Lyman was
formerly connected one of the companies
against which an indictment was returned.
1t was claimed by the attorneys for the
packers that the National Packing Com
pany was included in the indictment among
several companies which were mentioned
as several others. The arguments over
the admissbility of the evidence of Mr..
Lyman consumed nearly two hours.
The attorneys for the packers declared
that they wished TO have Mr.. Lyman testify
regarding his conversations with Comm-S-
sioner Garfield al the time the commits
sioner arrived in this city to commence his
Investigations into the packing industry.
After the arguments had been in progress
for over two hours the court commenced to
put questions. He addressed himself first
to the district attorney, saying:
If it is true that the defendants in this
case sat on the board of directors of the
National Packing Company, of which Ly-
man was the president, he was their agent,
was he not?"
Not at ALL" replied District Attorney
Morrison He spoke only for himself"
I'm answer to Mr.. Miller, l will say that
this Garfield report came to me like any
other public document which had been
published for weeks, and l used it as
such"
IF it has not been settled by the courts
that corporations can have immunity some
Of the evidence which has gone in is in
error" said Judge Humphrey
at has not been settled" replied the dis
trict attorney; but II the persons get 1t
in this case, l suppose the corporations
might as well have IL. ] have not yet
however heard a reason based on any rule
Of evidence why this testimony of Lyman
is competent"
The court here remarked with evident re-
greet
Il really hoped that you gentlemen would
have clear argument TO put before me
this morning
Garfield Report Used by Jury.
I'VE can show" said Attorney Miller
who is acting for the packers. that this
Garfield report was used before the grand
jury, before which Mr.. Lyman was a wit
ness"
"Can you prove that?' asked Judge Hum
phrey.
Il can prove it by this very witness" re-
piled Mr. Miller. Il will show that the very
matters given to Mr. Garfield. relating TO
the National Packing Company. were
brought out before the grand jury through
Mr.. Lyman. and that the Garfield report
was used before the grand jury by District
Attorney Morrison in cross-examfning Mr..
Lyman"
District Attorney Morrison declared that
the arguments had raised the question of
whether corporation can have immunity
He declared that the only way It could OBJ
tain Immunity was for one of its officers
TO produce books and papers OF the com
pany under oath.
Well said Judge Humphrey. IF Gar
field talked TO this witness about these de-
PENDANTS, and how ne was to get the books
and papers. his testimony is competent
II do not see by what process of reason
ing the court arrives at that conclusion"
replied District Attorney Morrison. IF il
is TO be that by talking to any man in the
company Garfield gave immunity to all, we
are spreading Immunity about like a pesti-
Ienee"