New-York tribune., 1910-02-15
WILL TRY HElKE
PLEA NOT GRANTED.
Sugar Secretary's Immunity
Claim DisalIOzced.

lean Sugar Refining Company, of New Jer
sey. will be put on trial on March l with
the former employees of the COMPANY. with
whom he indicted last month on
charges of conspiracy to defraud the gov
ernment out of duties on imported sugar
by means of underweighing.
This was decided by Judge Martin in the
Criminal Branch Of the United States Cir
cpit Court yesterday after he had directed
the jury to return a verdict against the
immunity plea made by Heike on the
ground that he had given testimony before
federal grand jures which were consider
ing questions pertaining to the manage
ment of the company and pertinent to the
matters OF which he was accused in the in
dictment.
After saying that, as the defendant under
the Indictment had in this plea for i'm
munity taken the affirmative of the issue.
Judge Martin declared the burden of proof
rested upon Heike. He continued. referring
to the contrary claim of the latter's coun-
sci, that the plea should be sustained unless
found to be contrary beyond a reasonable
doubt.
If such was to be held as the law, men of
means who were able to secure the services
of competent and adroit attorneys could
block the wheels OF justice by successive
pleas at bar, and perhaps succeed upon
some mere conjecture that the defendant
said did something before the grand
jury whereby he may be shielded by the
statute of immunity
Judge Martin salad the question was
whether Heike had testified to any trans
action matter or thing in reference to the
offense alleged against him in the lndlct-
mont NOT whether some ingenious mind
might carve out of the mass of innocent
facts something, some hidden fact whereby
If was barely possible that the same would
be used against him. That would be
dangerous practice, and would thUart the
ends of Justice the court said, and con-
tinued:
vi+ness testifving to documentary evil
dence found in the records of a corpora
ton, if, perchance, an inquiry were Lhahe Wv,
that may furnish evidence OF ms gun, nc
should assert his immunity. An ofncer OF d
CORPORATION has testimonial powers 10 eA-
tract from ties records q mass OF IactS.
usually innocent. and which relate only 10
his administrative duties. The inquiry OF
the defendant before the grand Jury was vas
relevant TO general facts OF Wnich the
company invited investigation.
If anything was revealed that might IN
crirninate him. Heike should nave as
serted il and thus warned the attorney, the
court said, SO that he could submit IL 10
the court so that the court could exercise
his discretion whether to proceed further'
grant the immunity. or stop short OF IT,
Saving that the defendant had failed 10
maintain his plea, Judge Martin continued:
Neither he nor the government attorney,
so far as appears here, had the sIlghlesI
idea that this defendant IN ms eVluenGe
before the grand jury reveaied I sl,isLe
fact that oculd be made use OF ~ IN 1bins eSsan 70
fishing his guilt of any matter OF tiliHs u
which this indictment relates
Immunity. Judge Martin said, should not
he enioved beyond a reasonable protection.
+ related not to the innocent. but to the
e,,iltv or to him who feared prosecution.
He denied that the implied charge or bad
faith made bv the counsel for Helke
aeainst the government counsel. had oeeh
shown in the leeast as to his call oefore
the grand iuries, but that the lactS
showed the contrary
The morning had been taken UP Win d.
s,,raents after the counsel for the govern II
ment and Heike had each asked the coul
TO direct the jury to find Verolcl' 'ne
one against the plea, and the othe! up
holding it thus withdrawing the question
fror, consideration by the jury. Judge Mar
+ir ordered a recess until O'Clock, ana
then at considera BILE length gave MS opih-
ion. with much dramatic effect.
In the small room on the fourth floor
of
crowd when the court was opened Ihere
u,era Samuel c. Hooker, one or the coln-
nanv's directors sitting next to Helke; IN
.be audience. Arthur Donner, another .di-
-oc+or and treas slIrer of the company; rep
,.asen+a+ive of James NJ Beck, the COM
nanv.s general counsel; most of the assist
an+s of United States Attorney Wise, and
other lawyers.
In the morning ex-senator John {. spoon
or WAS there to argue for a plea OF not
guiItv over the immunity plea II thele
should be opposition to the foimef' aller dh
adverse decision on the immedlate ques-
tion at issue. But in the recess couilsei
for t,e government had agreed not to op-
nose this overplea, which would align He1ke
Will, the other indicted men for trial on the
indictment
It became evident early in the proceed
ings Yesterday that the court was lilciiieu
20 .a,-or tho government Heike. who sat
back of his counsel. became less ana less
serere as the arguments proceeded in the
morning MI Stanchtield had successfully
opposed the admission of the grand jury
minutes on the ground that they asreeu
with his clients testimony regarding MS
evidence before the bodies.
Mr Stanchfeld held that the record or
the incorpora ton. the appointment of Heike
as secretary the proof of the American
Sugar Refining Company's ownership OF
the Havemever & Elder docks, where the
frauds were committed, and the furnishing
of tables showing the quantity of sugar
melted at the refinery, all obtained from
Heike by the grand juries. were essentials
in the case in the indictment, and hence
were grounds for immunity
The counsel for the government, Henry
J.. Stimson, made his argument under four
heads-that there was no statutory i'm
munity for offences arising out of frauds
against the revenue; that the defendant
had failed to show that he was prosecuted
for or on account of anything to which he
had heretofore testified; that all the in
formation he had given at the disposal
of the government by its own offer and
that the defendant before his appearance
before the grand iuries lad joined in the
offer Of information made by the company.
The only case that was a parallel to this
Chicago The defendant there pleaded i'm
munty because of conversations had with
government officials regarding the subjects
of the prosecution. Judge Humphrey, be-
fore whom. the plea tried conducted
the case as it conducted by Judge
Martin and when counsel asked that the
Jury give verdict for and against the plea
he delivered an opinion Ipholdng the plea
q nd directing A verdict aCcordinpiv Ac the