The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-03-22

Iere of inc amendment permits re- fusaI to answer question relating to the offense. The privilege must pc claimed by the witness at the tune. Ihe immunity flows to the witness without any claim on h!s part.
 'It Is contended that the defendaI. Is in this case were volunteers because they haggled with Garfield at times, debated, resisted. gave less thaii ne 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 his demands, ana 1T does not. to my mind, destroy the chsr- acter of the compulsion under which they acted that the defendants, after having considered the law and after having decided that they had no lesai right to resist, still debated with the commissioner, in the hope or inouchs him to take something less than ne originally demanded, Garfield came to the defendants ana held up before them the powers of his office They did not go 10 him and volunteer anything. Now. since the defendants volunteered nothing, but gave only what was demanded. by m officer who had the right to make the demand and gave in good faith unGer a sense of legal eompulslon, am or the opinion that they were entitled to immunity
 Humphrey Discusses Case.
 Judge Humphrey then entered upon an elaborate discussion of the conten- ton by the government that the wit nesses did not give under compulsion because they did not give under what is known in law as testamentary com pulsion. He said that he could add nothing to what had been adduced by way of argument on that subject, but was clearly of the opinion that the best judgment to be had from all the authorities is that the subpoena IS a useless and superficial tning a1ter 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 Attorney Morris said:
 "I will not make any record now in regard to the motions for new trials of any appeal do not know whether I am entitled to an appeal or not. I shall have to ask time to look 1t up.'
 we ask for judgment on the ver- dict" said Attorney Miller, "and make a. formal motion that the defendants, the individuals, be discharged"
 That is allowed" said Judge Hum phrey. ''They are discharged; that goes in the verdict."
 The attorney for the packers. all though plainly showing their pleas ure at the decision rsfrained from any expression of their feeling other than saying;
 q am satisfied
 Attorney Morrison, who is always quiet, said: of course. T have no crit- icism to offer. have argued the case as saw the law and thought that my view was correct. Somebody always has to be wrong and this time see. at least I have erred. that I am wrong. All the formal motions for a new trial will be made later.
 The individuals who go free under the decision are: J. ogden Armour. Ed ward Morris, Charles W. Armour. Ira N. Morris, Louis F. Swift. Edward F. Swift Charles N Swift. Edward Cudahy. Ar 1 thur Meeker, T. J. Connors. P. A. Val 1 entine, A. H. Veeder, Arthur F. Evans. l | A. Carton. Robert C. McManus. D. F.. l HartwelL The cornorations which must stand 1 trial are. Armour Packing Company, 1 Armour and Company. Cudahy Packing 1 Company. Fairbank Canning Company. and Swift and Company.