The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-07-13
JUDGE MILLER WON
POINT FOR PACKERS
Counsel Who Saved Armours
Held to Assist Chemical Of
ficials Under Indictment.

Judge John S. Miller. Of Chicago, who
is OF counsel for the defense IN the
case of the United States against the
Virginia Carolina Chemical Company and
Others, now before Judge Nathan Gof
on an application for writ OF habeas
the most noted corporation lawyers in
( the United States. II ;3 t59j '5i3 y
Judge Miller has been here since the
case was called on Tuesday before Judge
Waddll In the United States District
Court. but he did not speno until yes
sterday when the case came before Judge
Golf on habeas corpus proceedings. Then
{he made an able argument for the right
OF the defense to Introduce testimony to
show that there is not probable guilt in
the case OF Tinsley, Notwithstanding the
existence Of an indictment found In the
court of the Middle District OF Tennessee.
& Judge Miller has recently gained q
national reputation by a famous argument
he made in tho case Of the United States
against Armour and others, n case that
Is known rs the governments fight
against the meat packers combine. Judge
Miller was the 81 leading counsel for the
packers, and when the case came on in
December last before Judge Humrolries,
Of the United States Court t Or the North
1ern District Of Illinois, and lasted until
March, he made O. noted fight and won
out. N. n
ij The case was in some respects similar
to that Of the United States against the
Chemical Company, now pending, In that
the packing companies had been In
idlcted MS companies, and then the Ar
panies, had been indicted as individuals.
Meat of the Case.
HI Judge Nlilleir's contention before Judge
.HIumphries, which he so ably argued
and on which he won out, was that tho
4Armours were immune from prosecution
as individuals, they having been required
to produce tho books of the concerns Of
which they were officers ina previous In
vestigntion before the Commissioner Of
Corporations, and thus made to give GER
tain testimony that could or might DO
used against them when they came to DO
prosecuted personally, '5s t3
X This contention was. based on the act
of Congress creating the Department OF
Labor and Commerce, wherein 1t was, In
effect. providvld that when alinember CT
a firm, corporation, company y or COM
blne was required to produce his books
and papers to show a violation of tthe
laws concerning restraint of trade and
commerce, and lie did show such hooks
and papers he could not thereafter DO
prosecuted as an individual. but only as
a company; and, as n company cannot
lbe imprisoned, the only punishment that
can follow Is a fine. 4 4.
This was evidently q clause put In the
act creating the Department OF Labor
and Commerce to facilitate the officers
or government in getting at the combines
and trusts as companies and It was not
dreamed by the lawmakers that the menu
beers of any combine or corporation would
turn It to good account DIR their own
immunity. But Judge Miller put In this
Very claim for immunity for his CLIENTS
and his lengthy argument wns convincing
for Judge Ihlnphries decided his way, AM.
that epded, on tho goth OF March last.
the prosecution against the meat pack
ers of Chicago as individuals. 4
Readers of The Times-p lspRtch perhspa
remember that this ACTION Of Judge
Humphries and the summary ending OF
the cases against the Armours and othfr
Western meat packers attracted a great
deal Of attention Mt the time. The news.
papers discussed 1t, lawyers tallse bout