Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-04-18
The Presidents Comment on
Judge Humphreys. Ruling
TRIAL OF THE BEEF PACKERS
He Sends a Special Message to Con-
gress.
IMMUNITY OF THE WITNESSES
Claims-That No Criticism Attaches to
Commissioner Garfield-Asks
for Legislation.

| In a special message. delivered to the
| Congress today. President Roosevelt de-
| clares that the result OF the recent trial OF
| the beef packers In Chicago was a mis-
| carriage of Justice" and that the interpre-
tation placed by Judge Humphrey on the
| win Of Congress rs such as to make that
will absolutely abortive"
! The message, which Is most sensational In
| character. Is based largely on a letter to
/ the President from Attorney General
/ Moody. In which the Attorney General re-
views the proceedings OF the case OF the
| government against the beef packers. The
/ president says 1t Is clear that no criticism
/ attaches to Commissioner Garfield. as W hat
ne did was in pursuance of duty imposed
on him by Congress. He refers sharply,
/ however. to the decision of Judge Hum
phrey, saying that Congress could not have
| foreseen such a decision and that he can
/ hardly believe that the ruling OF Judge
Humphrey win be followed by other judges
! He declares that such Interpretation of the
law as that placed on it by Judge Hum
| phrey comes measurably near making the
| law farce. and he recommends that
Congress pass declaratory act stating its
real intention. The President also requests
Congress to confer upon the government,
| by statute, the same right of appeal. in
criminal cases. which the defendant now
| enjoys. where the merits of the case have
| not been determined
| The Message
! The full text of the message follows.
TO the Senate and House of Represen-
| tatlves:
| L submit herewith a letter of the At
torney General. inclosIng statement
| OF proceedings by the United States
against the individuals and corpora
tons commonly known as the beef pack
ers, ana commenting upon the decision
| OF District Judge Humphrey. The result
has been miscarriage OF justice. 1t clear
| ly appears from the letter of the Attorney
General that no criticism attaches to Com
| missioner Garfield; what he did was In
| strict accordance with the law and in pur-
suance OF a duty imposed on him by Con-
gress. which could not be avoided. and. of
| course, Congress In passing the Martin
| resolution could not possibly have fore
| seen the decision Of Judge Humphrey.
But this Interpretation by Judge Hum
| phrey of the will Of Congress as expressed
| in legislation is such as to make that abso-
| lutely abortive. Unfortunately there is
| grave doubt whether the government has
the right to appeal from this decision of
| the district Judge The case well illustrates
| the desirability of comforting upon the
| government the same right Of appeal in
| criminal cases, on questions of law, which
| the defendant now has in all cases where
| the defendant has not been put in jeopardy
| by trial upon the merits Of the charge
/ made against him. The laws of many of
/ the states, and the law of the District of
Columbia, recently enacted by the Con-
gress give the government the right OF
| appeal A general law of the character
indicated should certainly be enacted
Immunity of Witnesses.
| Furthermore it is very desirable to
act law declaring the true construction OF
| the existing legislation so far as 1t affects
| immunity. 1 can hardly believe that the
| ruling of Judge Humphrey will be followed
| by other judges; but If it should be fol-
| lowed, the result would be either complete
| ly to nullify very much and possibly the
major part of the good to be obtained
| from the interstate commerce law and from
| the law creating the bureau of corporations
| in the Department of Commerce and Labor;
| or else frequently to obstruct an appeal
/ to the criminal laws by the Department
| of Justice. There seems to be no good
reason why the Department of Justice.
| the Department of Commerce and Labor
! and the interstate commerce commission
| should not, for the common good proceed
| within it's own powers without undue in
| reference with the functions of the other.
| It is, of course, necessary under the Consd-
| tuition and the laws that persons who give
| testimony or produce evidence as witnesses
|
1t has hitherto been supposed that the
| immunity conferred by existing laws was
| only upon persons who. being subpoenaed,
had given testimony or produced evidence
| as witnesses relating to any ofense with
which they were or might be charged. But
Judge Humphreys decision is in effect that
| il either the commissioner OF corporation
does his duty or the interstate commerce
| commission does it's by making the investi-
cations which they by law are required to
| make, though they issue no subpoena and
receive testimony or evidence, within
| the proper meaning of those words. the
very fact of the investigation may of it
self operate to prevent the prosecution of
any offender for any offense which may
| have been developed in even the most in
direct manner during the course OF the in
vestigation or even for any offense which
may have been detected by Investigations
| conducted by the Department of Justice en-
| tirely Independently OF the labors of the
! interstate commerce commission or of the
| commissioner of corporations-the only con-
| dition of immunity being that the offenders
| should have given, or directed to be given.
| Information which related to the subject
| out of which the offense has grown.
Guilty May Escape.
an offenses of this kind II is at the best
! hard enough to execute Justice upon Of
| tenders Our system Of criminal jurispru-
| dence has descended to US from a period
| when the danger was lest the accused
| served, and 1t is admirably framed to meet
| this danger. But at present the danger is
| just the reverse; that u.s. the danger now
| adays is. not that innocent man will be
| convicted of crime, but that the guilty man
! will &c scot free. This is especially the
| case where the crime is one of greed and
| cunning perpetrated by man of wealth
| in the course of those business operations
| where the code of conduct is at variance
| not merely with the code of humanity and
morality but with the code as established
| in the law of the land 1t is much easier.
| but much less effective, to proceed against
| corporation than to proceed against the
| individuals in that corporation who are
| themselves responsible for the wrongdoing.
Very naturally outside persons VINO have no
| knowledge of the facts. and no responsible
/ ity for the success OF the proceedings. are
| apt to clamor for action against the indi-
viduals. The Department of Justice has,
most wisely, invariably refused thus to pro-
| coed against the individuals, unless II was
convinced both that they were in fact
guilty and that there was at least reason
These beef packing cases offered one OF
| their guilt.
These beck packing cases offered one of