Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-11-19

ing. Brother Rockefeller. have you had
your immunity bath today?"
Judge Humphrey could not be changed.
however. He decided for the defendants
ihe corporation, as such, was not given
immunity, but the beef trust Officials
came out of that immunity bath as fresh
and as honest looking as "A German
dachshund- Judge Humphrey was OF the
OPINION that. Notwithstanding they had
not been summoned and sworn, yet TIN.
information they gave Commissioner Gar
field was sufficiently under compulson to
purchase the immunity that the law al
lowed.
The country was surprised. the admin
lStratlon was astounded al the Humphrey
decision. President Roosevelt denounced
IT. The government could not then APP
peal to a higher court but Congress
enacted, without delay, law making A
subpoena and oath necessary before a
witness could claim immunity from the
consequences of his own confession. Con
sequently, ever since that law was passed
IN 1906 If a railroad or trust official wants
immunity for anything he is called upon
To tell the interstate commerce commits
slonerS or the commissioner of corpora-
lions lie had better insist on a summons
and an oath
mat immunity immersion Of 1906 did
tue peel parons so much good that ii wa
naturally the first thing they thought az
Nhen, in 1910 they We're indicted a second
time and brought into the same United
states district court i'm Chicago to an
SWer Tor killing competition in the meat
business and capitalizing the corpse.
They did not at first deny the charges
IN the 1910 indictments but kept saving
Ne want a BATH Give as another
OTIS Humphrey immunity bath Vita
tears IN their voices they claimed that
the 1910 grand jury had made use of tho
acts for which they were pardoned in
1906 FOR the purpose of searching out sim
liar acts committed since then. They In
sisted that forgiveness meant forgetful-
nos nV,6
Mr.. Garfield in 1904 and 1905 were oblit-
Grated by the 1906 immunity bath. AMI
could not therefore be used to show that
they were doing the same things again.
81
They were indignant that Uncle Sam
had attempted TO make cruel monsters
of the present out of grim specters of the,
past" And the beef trust lawyers begged
Judge Carpenter-the United States indigo
in this 19lO-11 hearing-not to allow the
strong hand of the government thus TO
brush aside the constitutional rights OF
their prosecuted clients.
But Judge Carpenter couldn't src II that
way. In his decision of March 81 1911
he said that such claim was wrong in
reason, wrong in law. and wrong in
morals. Judge Carpenter held that the
immunity given in 1906 was for crimes
already committed and that of course
they could not expect to escape prosecu-
ton for future offenses simply because
such future offenses We're similar TO those
past otfenses; nor, indeed. could they
complain if those past immune offenses
were brought ont into the open with the
roof off for the purpose of showing that
the future offenses were a continuation
1r repetition of the immune offenses
And as for the fair names Of the beef
)arons that their attorneys were concern
I'd about, Judge Carpenter quoted the
supreme Court of the United States az
saying in another case:
"A person who commits criminal act
8 bound to contemplate the consequences
If exposure to his name and reputation
md ought not to call upon the courts TO
protect that which he has himself es-
eemed to be of such little value The
afety and welfare of an entire commun-
ty should not be put into the scale
gainst the reputation of self-confessed
riminaI."
The government has been after the beef
rust for nearly decade now without
vail, and there arc signs of Impotence
I the failures. If a jury ever brings n,
verdict of guilty against the packers
he trial judge may take "A great deal OF
abstraction in exercising his authority
nder the Sherman law by sentencing
hem TO the wrong side of crate. But
;hether they will ever go there or not
a question. BY that time there may
e another legal technicality.
GILES RUSSELL TAGGART.