The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-02-01
MORRISON
 AND MORRIS Interesting Tilt Between
 the Two. THE CASE OF THE PACKERS Little of Importance Brought Out
 Yesterday. Witnesses Continue to Assert that Commissioner of Corporations Garfield Made Promises of
 Immunity to Them.
 
THE CASE OF THE PACKERS

hearing of the packers case. Edward Morris, Teasurer of the Fairbanks Can ming Company; Ira N. Morris. his broth CT. Secretary of the same corporation. and Edward F. Swift. vice-Presldent of Swift & Co.,, were the only witnesses on the stand.
 The direct examination of EdwarI Morris was almost concluded yesteT- day and he was cross-examined today at considerable length by District At torney Morrison. He was asked if there was anything in the books of hts company which might convict it of a violation of an injunction issued some time previous to the Garfield investiga- tion by Judge Grosscup of the Federal bench iS this city. enJoining the packers from combining in restraint of trade, but the court declared that he could not be required to answer the question.
 Ira N. Morris and Edward Swift de- clared that they had been assured by Commissioner Garfield that none of the information he secured from them would be turned over to the Depart ment of Justice.
 Morris First Witness.
 Edward Morris. vice-President of the Fairbank Canning Company, took the stand again when the packers case was opened today. District Attorney Morri- son asked the witness if he had talked with the other witnesses as to what his testimony would be. The witness de- nied that he had done so.
 Are you a director of the National Packing Company"
 All of the attorneys employed by the packers at once objected to drawing the name of the National Packing Company into the case because that company Is not a defendant in the case, but the question was admitted and s.4e witness answered, Yes. ann
 Who arc the other members of the board of directors of that company
 An objection to this question was sustained by the court.
 Did MT Garfeld's report show any of the profits and losses of your com
 No, R dIde not
 The witness was then questioned at length as to why -..e packers caused copies of the report of the commits sioner to be circulated about the coun- try and he replied that he did not knew that this was done.
 When you first met Commissioner Garfield why did you not tell him at once that he could examine your books? You knew ne had the power to compel it." l
 q wanted to consult my attorney and report the interview to him."
 Why were you not willing to turn the books over?"
 T did not want to do 1t unless lad to do it. There was an injunction against me-
 This reply of the witness referred to the injunction issued by Judge Cross cup of the federal court, which in eI- feet enjoined the packers from com blning the restraint of trade.
 'Was there anything in those books to show you had violated that injunc- tion?"
 A chorus or objections greeted t8s question.
 He said that he did not want to give up those books said the district attorney, and q want to know if there is anything in them which might in- criminate him
 Question Ruled Out.
 Judge Humphrey ruled against the question, declaring that tho present cause Is so closely allied to criminal case, that great advantages might lbe taken in the main case of the testimony secured in the present hearing.
 The examination of Edward Morris was concluded shortly after the noon adjournment of court, and his brother, Ira N. Morris. Secretary of tho Fair banks Canning Company, followed him on the stand MT. Morris testified that he had allowed the inspection of tte UOOkS OI tl6 GduuiiE 1C4'iN pany on the advice of counsel. He mad gone to Hot Springs. Ark, at the time. but gave his brother power to repre- sent him during his absence. District Attorney Morrison objected.
 Tt makes no difference" ho said, who was represented or what anybody said. If there Is any immunity in this case it will come through the law and not through any person
 rFyt.. hot +hp ton flt1,s. sNg was proper.
 The witness was shown two letters which he identified as acquisitions by the Government on the Fairoank Can ming Company for the examination of it's books. He said that he gIve orders that the requests of the Government for the books should be granted in every instance The cross examination which related to the number of mon who had appeared at the once of the Fairbanks Canning Company to exam ine the books for the Government de- nothing new.
 Edward F. Swift, Vice President and a director of Swift & Company. followed MT. Morris on the stand. He said tha. he had consulted with counsel as to whether he should give information to Commissioner Garfield, and that he had acted in conformity with that ad-
 
 to Inspect the books. MT. Swift said that when he first met Commissioner Garfield the Commissioner said that he presumed Mir. Swift knew of the power of the Commissioner to compel Swift & Co. to submit It's books for inspection, and that he hoped 1t would not be nee essary to resort to the law.
 Mir Garfield assured him, he said. that the information given by the pack CTS would not be used outside lf the oHlce of the Commissioner of Corpora tIons. He declared. according to the witness, that he spoke for President Roosevelt, and said that 1t was the policy of the administration to protect the packers.
 Misunderstanding arose later said the witness. between the men in our office and Mir. Durand. the agent Of the regarding the scope of the investigation. The officers of the company held a conference with MT Durand to settle the matter MT. Dur and was asked what would be the re- suit if the information he had called for vraS denied him He replied that