The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-03-22

clared today when esking for n nost-
ponement OF the trial, that their vii
nesses would number 1900 and the GOV.
ernment has already said that n wou,d
nave 100 or more,
Refutes Attorney General.
The court proceedings Tor tho dav
were commenced by the argument of
Attorney John S. Miller. who had
waived portion of his time in favor M
the Attorney General. saying that il
was evident to the most casual readcr
of the Interstate commerce law tbet
no distinction existed IN ;hat act he
tween evidence given voluntarily AMI
evidence given under compulsion. He
declared that there could not he tho
slightest doubt that The defendants in
the present case we're entitled to i'm
munity.
Attorney Miller concluded his arrn-
lnent shortly after 3 O'Clock, and Judge
Humphrey at once commenced speak
ing from the bench announcing nis de-
cision. part of which was az follows,
Tho defendants e-indicted under the
sherman act, charged with a conspiracy
In restraint of trade.
Packers Contention.
They have pleaded that as TO them
that act should be suspended because
bHeS were compelled TO FURNISH evidence
concerning the matter in the indictment,
and under the law such furnishing of eyi-
dence gives them immunity. The law
under consideration for the construction
OF which the court is called uDon to de-
eide is the commerce md labor act II is
claimed that the primary purpose of this
act was TO enable Congress To provide
through the channel OF officials charged
with the execution OF the laws. remedial
Legislation,
The net ia a substitute for one of tho
most cherished rights of the American
citizen, which is the right to remain 81
lent when questions about any subject
the answer TO which might incriminato
him. 1t is conceded that tho provision OF
the constitution could not be taken from
the citizen without giving him something
valuable In return. The privilege of the
amendmont permits refusal to answer
a question relating to the offense The
privilege must he granted to the witness
ut the time, The immunity flows to the
witness without any claim on his part
The Governments Claim.
1T is contendcd that the defendants
IN this case We're 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 remains that
every approach WAS made by the govern
mcnt, Garfield made his demands and IL
ter OF the compulsion under which they
acted, that the defendants after having
considered the law. and after having de-
cided that they had no legal right to re-
sist sun debated with tho commissioner
In the hope of inducing him to make
something less than he originally de-
mandcd
"Garheld came to the defendants and
held UP before them the powers OF his
office They did not go to him and volun-
teer anything. Now, since the defendants
volunteered nothing, but gave only what
was demanded by an officer who had the
right TO make the demand, and gave In
good faith under a sense OF legal COM
pulsions ! am OF the opinion that they
vSro entitled to immunity"
Judge Humphrey then entered upon an
elaborate discussion OF the contention by
the Government that he witnesses did
not give under compulsLon. but they did
not give under what is known in law
as testamentary compulslon- He said that
he could add nothing TO what had been
subject. but was clearly OF the opinion
that the best judgment TO be had from
all the authorities is that the subpoena
Is useless and superficial thing after
the parties are together,
May Ask an Appeal.
The formal statement declaring in favor
of the individual defendants was then
made by the court.
Immediately following the decision Dis
trict Attorney Morrison eaid:
II will not make any record now In
regard to the motions for new trials or
an appeal. l do not know whether am
entitled to an appeal or not. / shall
have to ask time to look IT up"
I'VE ask for judgment on the Verdict"
said Attorney Miller. And 1 make a
formal motion that the defendants, the
individuals, be discharged"
That Is allowed" said Judge Hum
Uhrey "They are discharged. That
goes In the verdict"
The attorneys for the packers. although
plainly showing their pleasure at the de-
c,sion, rcfraned from any expression OF
their feelings other than saying, Il am
satisfied"
Those Who viii Go Free.
"Of course l have no criticism to offer. 4"
snid Mr.. Morrison. Il have argued the
case as ] saw the law and thought my
view was correct Somebody always has
10 be beaten. and this time / see, at
least / have heard. that l am wrong.
All the formal motions for new trial
Will be made later
All the individuals Will go free under
the decision as follows:
j. Ogden Armour. Charles w. Armour
Edward Morris, Ira N Morris, Louis A.
Swift, Edward +. Swift. Charles y.
swift, Edward Cudahy. Arthur Meeker.
T. ] Connors P. a. Valentine, A n
Veeder. Arthur f. Evans, L. A carter
Arthur c. McMonus and D, z. Hart
well. 49,,
The corporations which must stand trlal
are: Armour Packing company Armour
& Co Cudahy Packing company, FAR
banks Canning company and swift & 90.