The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-09-03
War ON TRUSTS.
The Government Is About to
Renew Its Attacks.
Battle Will Open All Along the
Line This Week.
CAN HARDLY ESCAPE.
Conviction OF Standard by Itf
Officials Planned.
Few of the Men "Higher Up"
Can Claim Immunity.


anti-rebate prosecutions of the Stand
ard Oil company, the United States gov
ernment will renew more confidently
than ever its efforts to force dissolu
tions of the trust Out of the mouths
of officials and employees the govern
ment proposes to establish the mono
polistic character of corporations. This
proof will be secured from more than
| fifty witnesses, who will be examined
! in New York beginning tomorrow.
Tremendous though the blow struck
| by Judge Lands at the Standard, 1t
| is really the antitrust proceedings up
on which the government depends to de-
stroy the monopoly and create a condi-
| tion of fair. competition. The policy to
! be pursued in the case has been
framed with the utmost care, the in
tent being not merely to dissolve the
| trust but to institute criminal prosecu-
tions of men higher up" who will be
proven guilty of willful violation of the
law.
John D. Rockefeller and John D.
Archbold are entitled to immunity
through appearance in Judge Lands
court, but Henry M Flagler, Charles
Pratt, o. H. Payne, William Rockefeller,
H. H. Rogers, and others have no claim
to governmental consideration. Few, If
any of these men will be required to
testify
Will Put Burden ON Magnates.
The government will rely upon sub
ordinates to show conditions which exist
and to make a chain which will convince
an impartial jury that acts of minor
officials really were initiated and di-
rected by the oil magnates. The attend
ance of witnesses, of course, can be en-
forced by government prosecutors 1t IL
also claimed here that witnesses can
be compelled to give evidence, even if
their testimony might tend to incrimi-
nate them. Under the law, however.
such witnesses would be immune from
punishment as to matters of which they
should testify.
A nice point of distinction as to what
witnesses may take advantage of inn
munity of law has been raised at the
department of justice, and will likely
be given careful thought, because of
the large number of witnesses sum-
moned by the government in: the pend-
ing suit. The language of the statute,
after declaring witnesses mus testify,
even if the evidence they give will in
criminate them, goes on, but no per-
son shall be prosecuted or subjected to
any penalty or forfeiture for or on ac-
count of immunity in the transaction,
matter, or thing concerning which he
may testify or produce evidence ex-
cepting. of course, that a witness shall
be guilty of perjury, for which offense
he may be punished.
Intent OF Law Shown.
Some officials of the department of
Justice held that the obvious intent of
the law was to get around that pro-
vision of the constitution which de-
clares that no person shall bear wit
ness against himself. They say that
under the widest and most liberal in
terpretation of the law immunity can
be claimed on the questions and mat
ters upon which the witness is being
examined or arising under the case at
issue.
This question assumes much sig
lot ai1ao tor, ie- afl
large importance when it is recalled
that John D. Rockefeller and other
leading lights of the Standard pro-
fessed ignorance as to the many mat
ters of vital Importance to their cor
poration when questioned concerning
them by Judge Landis at Chicago. If
it should develop in the present in
vestigation that these men were not
sincere or truthful in their declara-
tions of ignorance it is contended in
some quarters the government would
not be stopped by the immunity law
from proceeding against them under |
the criminal features of the antitrust |
law because they appeared before |
Judge Lands.
No Claim to Immunity.
AS Mr.. Rockefeller and other wit
nesses knew nothing or claimed to |
know nothing as to matters concern |
ing which they had been summoned |
to testify it is asserted they could have |
given no evidence tending to incrimi-
nate themselves. Hence the immunity |
which envelops witness coincident |
with the governing of discriminating
testimony did not accrue to them be-
cause it was not needed.
It further is argued that Rockefe1- |
Ter and others are not entitled to any
immunity because of proceedings be-
fore Judge Lands, because they were
not summoned to testify in any mat
ter. case. or as to any transaction, but
sirnnlv as to the resources Of the com
panv convicted of violation of the
antf-rebate law. Frequent confer
ences of Special Counsel Morrison and
Kellogg with Attorney General Bona
parte and President Roosevelt and re-
peated statements by the latter that
some rich malefa ctors may be t in
the penitentiary gives color to the be-
lief that startling developments are
expected in Investigations the govern
ment has under way
That the limitations of the immu-
nifty clause in law are appreciated by
those with whom the government is
dealing is shown by the fact that Chi
cago & Alton auth critics were carcful
to get personal pledges of immunity
from legal officers of the governm ent
before they testified concerning the
granting of rebates to the Standard
Another point in reference to the
that it applies only to individuals and
not to corporations. Thus it Is argued
that while it applies to those officials
of a corporation giving testimony Grim
inatorv in character and exempts them
from punishment it does not release
to be liable to fine for violation of the
law.
Should the government be successful
in its suit for dissolution of the Stand