The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-03-22
BEEF PACKERS ESCAPE
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
Faces of the Multi Millionaires Wreathed
in Smiles When the Judge An
nounced His Decision.

vision of the constitution could not be
taken from the citizen without giving
him something equally valuable in re-
turn. The privilege of the amendment
permits refusal to answer a question
relating to the offense. The privilege
must be granted to the witness at the
time. The immunity flows to the W.T.
ness without any claim on his part.
Garfield Made Demands.
1T is contended that the defendants
in this case were volunteers because
they haggled with Garfield at times,
debated. resisted, gave less than he
asked and withheld some things. The
record does show that, but the fact re-
mains that every approach was made
by the government. Garfield made mis-
demands, and ii does not to my mind
destroy the character of the compul-
sion under which they acted, that The
defendants, after having considered
the law, and after having decided that
they had no legal right to resist. still
debated with the commissioner in the
hope of inducing him to take some
thing less than he originally demand
ed. Garfield came to the defendants
and held I'D before them the powers
of his office. They did not go to him
and volunteer anything. Now, since
the defendants volunteered nothing,
but gave only what was demanded rs
an officer who had the right to make
the demand, and gave in good faith
under a sense of legal compulsion, 1
am of the opinion that they were en-
titled to immunity"
Subpoena Was Useless.
Judge Humphrey then entered upon
an elaborate discussion of the conten-
ton by the government that the wit
nesses did not give under compulsion,
but they did give under what is known
in law as testamentary compulSion.
He said that he could add nothing to
what had been adduced by way of ar
gument on that subject, but was clear
" of the opinion that the best judg-
ment to be. had from all the authori-
ties is that the subpoena is a useless
and superficial thing after the parties
are together.
The formal statement declaring In
favor of the individual defendants was
then made by the court.
Immediately following the decision
District-AtteFTfey Morrison said.
81 will not make any record now in
regard to the motions for new trials
or an appeal I do not know whether
I am entitled to an appeal or not. I
shall have to ask time to look it up"
I'VE ask for judgment on the YER
dict" said Attorney Miller. And
make a formal motion that the defend
ants. the individuals, be discharged
Defendants Discharged.
THAT is allowed" said Judge Hum
phrey. They are discharged. That
goes in the verdict"
The attorneys for the packers, al
though plainly showing their pleasure
at the decision, refrained from any
expression of their feelings other than
saying, 'I am satisfied"
Attorney Morrison said;
''Of course, I have no criticism to Of
fer. I have argued the case as I saw
the law, and thought my view was
correct. Somebody always has to be
beaten, and this time / see, at least
have heard, that I am wrong. All the
formal motions for a new trial viii be
made later"
All the individuals will go free Un-
der the decision, as follows: ]. Ogden
Armour, Charles W. Armour, Edward
Norris Ira n. Morris, Louis A. Swift,
Edward F. Swift. Charles n. Swift,
Edward Cudahy, Arthur Meeker, T. J.
Connors. P. A. Valentine, A. H. Weed
er. Arthur F. Evans. L. A. Carter, Ar
thur c.. McManus and d. z. HartweIl
The corporations which must stand
trial are: Armour Packing company,
Armour & Co, Cudahy Packing com
pany, Fairbanks Canning company
and Swift & Co.