The daily morning journal and courier., 1906-04-19
LAW IS ABORTIVE
JUSTICE MISCARRIED IN PACK
 ERS' TRIAL.

c1S Attaches NO COInAn1ASIOneE Udr-
 field" Says Roosevelt, but Ruling of
 Judge Humphrey "COmes Near Maz-
 ing the Law a Farce"-RecOmmends That Congress Give Government
 Right of Appeal in Criminal Cases--
 Danger, in Present System of Jurls-
 prudence, Is That Guilty Men Go Free.
 Washington, April 1S.-In a special message sent to congress to-day Presi- dent Roosevelt says that the result of the recent trial of the "beef packers" in Chicago was miscarriage of jus tice," and that the interpretation placed by Judge Humphrey on the will of con- gress lis such as to make that will ab- solutely abortive."
 The message, which is most sensa- tional in character, is based largely on a letter to the president from Attorney General Moody, in which the attorney general reviews the proceedings of the case of the government against the beef packers. The president says that 1t is clear that no criticism attaches to Commissioner Garfield as what he did was In pursuance of duty imposed on him by congress. He refers sharply, however. to the decision of Judge Humphrey, saying that congress could not have foreseen such a decision, and that he can hardly believe that the rul- ing of Judge Humphrey will be follow ed by other judges. He says that such Interpretation of the law as that placed on it by Judge Humphrey "comes meas drably near making the law farce" and he recommends that congress pass a declaratory act stating its real inten- tion.
 The president also requests congress to confer upon the government by statute, the same right of appeal in criminal cases which the defendant now enjoys, where the merits of the case have not been determined.
 The full text of the message follows: "To the Senate and House of Repre-
 sentatives:
 q submit herewith letter of the at torney- general, enclosing a statement of the proceedings by the United States against the individuals and corpora tions commonly known as the beef packers and commenting upon the de- cision of District Judge Humphrey. The result h&s been a miscarriage of jus tice. It clearly appears from the let ter of the attorney-general that no criticism whatever attaches to Commis sioner Garfield; what he did was in struct accordance with the law and in pursuance of duty imposed on him by congress which could not be avoid- ed; and of course congress, in passing the Martin resolution, could not possi- bly, have foreseen the decision of Judge Humphrey.
 WOULD RENDER WILL OF CON-
 GRESS ABORTIVE.
 "But this interpretation by Judge Humphrey of the will of the congress, as expressed in legislation, is such as to make that will absolutely abortive. Unfortunately there is grave doubt whether the government has the right of appeal from this decision of the dis trict judge The case well Illustrates the desirability of conferring upon the government the same right of appeal in cr.eninal cases, 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 of the charge made against him. The laws of many of the states, and the law of the District of Columbia, re- gently enacted by congress, give the government the right of appeal A general law of the character indicated should certainly be enacted.
 eFurthermore, 1t is very desirable to enact a law declaring the true con- struction of the existing legislation so far as it affects immunity, can hard ly believe that the ruling of Judge Humphrey will be followed by other Judges but if it should be followed the result would be either completely to nullify very much, and possibly the major part, of the good to be obtained from the interstate commerce law and from the law creating the bureau of corporations in the department of com rnerce and labor; or else frequently to obstruct an appeal to the criminal laws by the department of justice. There seems to be no good reason why the department of justice, the department of commerce and labor, and the inter state commerce commission each should not, for the common good, proceed within it's own powers, without undue Interference with the functions of the other. It is, of course, necessary, un- der the constitution and the laws, that persons who give testimony or produce evidence. as witnesses, should receive immunity from prosecution. It has hitherto been supposed that the immu- nity conferred by existing laws was onlv upon persons who, being subpoe- naed. had given testimony or produced evidence, as witnesses, relating to any offence with which they were, or might be, charged.
 .'But Judge Humphreys decision is, in effect, that if either the commission CT of corporations does his duty, or the interstate commerce commission does its. by making the investigations which they are required, though they issue no subpoena and receive no testimony or evidence, within the proper meaning of these words, the very fact of the inves- tigation may of itself operate to pre- vent the prosecution of any offender for any offence which may have been de- veloped in even the most indirect man. ner during the course of the investiga- fiou. or even for any offence which may have been detected by investigations
 ,4aa 1o,, 41,a da1orto,ap+ of i1eticp