New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-24
TIE PACKERS, IMMUNITY.

If Judge Humphreys decision in the packers
cases stands. il is evident that the only way
10 bar lawbrealerS from what Attorney Cen
eral Moody calls an Immunity bath" is TO
close the Bureau of Corporations as detec-
tive agency. or at least shut il off from all
communication with the Department of Justice.
The plans of the administration for the en-
fOrcement of the antitrust laws are Of course,
disarranged by This decision. The government.
unless il secures a reversal, must content itself
in pending cases with the mere infection Of
fines on the offending corporations if convicted,
without being able 10 punish those who really
commit the illegal acts. and for the future must
carefully avoid the collection of evidence to
be used against individuals through the agency
Of any bureau legally entitled to demand infor-
nation. While from one point Of view this is
embarrassi from another it iustiieS the much
criticised attitude of the President respecting
the prosecution of individuals who had CO.
operated with the government to cure rate
abuses and, as an incident thereto had revealed
long standing methods which needed correc-
ton.
IN some quarters a disposition is manifested
70 interpret the decision IS effectual bar 10
prosecution of corporaticU officers. but do
not believe the rule laid down by Judge Hum
phrey to be so far reaching. The Judge dealt
with specific information of an intimate charac-
ter secured by Commissioner Garfield. He holds
that under the circumstances il was practically
an extOrted confession. We doubt if this i'm
munity could be so extended as to make cor
poration officers irresponsible for offences re-
vealed by the regular corporation books which,
under the Supreme Court decision just handed
down. the corporations can be forced to pro
duce Nor can il be extended to one man be-
cause of the testimony drawn from another
In the hackers cases. we believe Mr.. Garfield
received the condolences Of the defendants in
general. All had contributed more or less to
a single body of information by which all were
incriminated. And they had not made these
statements voluntarily, or at least Of their own
initiative, but as part of their legal duty toward
the Department Of Commerce and Labor. A
grant of immunity TO them under such circum-
stances gives no warrant for predicting the
realization of that voluntary procession Of law
breakers to Washington TO confess and obtain
absolution which Attorney General Moody pict-
ured in his argument. For further enforcement
of the law the government is thrown back TO
ordinary methods to the use of detectives TO
the examination Of corporation records and to
the selection of a few witnesses from band
of lawbreallers TO punish others.
It is not quite clear, indeed how far, under
Judge Humphreys decision. corporation books
and documents produced under subpoena can be
used against those having them in custody.
Probably the persons producing discriminating
documents. though they were official records
Of a corporation. would be protected, but moth
ing in the opinion shows that others would be,
and Justice Brown in his opinion in the Tobacco
Trust case the other day, while declaring that
the corporation had no immunity, also said that
the right of a person to refuse TO incriminate
himself was never intended to permit him TO
plead the fact that some other person might
''be incriminated by his testimony, even though
.'he were the agent of such person 1t is settled
that a corporation can be compelled to produce
its books If those books reveal crime, all
those who are not themselves made use Of by
the government to produce the evidence would
seem 10 be liable TO prosecution. Any prose
cutions under the antitrust laws. however,
must be exclusively the work of the Depart
ment of Justice so long as Judge Humphrey
ruling stands.