The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1911-03-09
IMMUNITY PLEA IS
0v[RRULEO IN
BATHTUB CASE
Judge Denison Knocks Another Prop
From Under Defense Of Alleged
Trust, and Indicted Men Must
Now Go To Trial.
Defendants Answers in Civil Suit
Not Testimony and Don't Free
Them From Prosecution.

|
Another prop was knocked from
under the defense In the bathtub
trust cases, Thursday, when Judge
Arthur .Denison. OF Grand Rapids,
handed down a decision overruling
the pleas OF immunity fled by the
defendants and argued at length by q
distinguished array of counsel In the
local United States court last week.
The promptness with which Judge
Denison decided the important ques-
ton was surprise to the lawyers.
There Is now no other course left
for the defendants but to proceed to
trial, unless they should see fit to
come in and plead guilty, which is
hardly likely, for they deny the
existence of trust. The case is
scheduled for trial In the March term,
which will not begin until March IA.
Judge Denison will hear the case, in
all probability.
The contention of the defendents
was that the answers filed by them in
the governments suit instituted In
Baltimore to dissolve the alleged
trust, rendered them immune from
prosecution under the criminal
statutes. Judge Denison's opinion
upsets this contention entirely. 1t
follows in part:
"It IL clear that the answers were
under oath and were demanded and
given In such q proceeding under the
antitrust act as the immunity statute
contemplates. The only question Is
whether these answers constitute
testimony or evidence under oath
in obedience to a subpoena
TT is also clear that the fling of
the answer may be thought of as
something done in obedience to q sub
pena,' because It is required by law
az step following upon the issue Of
subpoena.
So, too, 1t cannot be doubted that
an answer under oath was, under the
|Uld equity practice and I'm proper
case, evidence, and often controlling
evidence. upon final disposition, OF an
equity suit.
''It follows that, without any distor-
ton of the language into grotesQue or
unknown form or meaning, the re-
spondents can make II spell immun-
ity In this case; but II does not fol-
low, even under the rules of construc-
ton Of criminal statutes, that re-
spondents must have a favorable in
depreciation just because such In
depreciation is possible. The true
criterion must be the fair and reason
able meaning, the sense In which 1t
is probable that congress used the
chosen words.
ut is not to be inferred that the
individual defendants were Joined in
the equity suit only for the purpose
Of obtaining discovery. The reason
able inference IL that they were join
ed so as to obtain an effective in
substantially discontinued, the result
ing evidential character of the answer
had practically disappeared. Skilled
equity counsel remember this histori-
cal, but obsolescent, function of the
answer; but probably laymen general
ly, as well az mos lawyers In the
code states and many lawyers In the
other states, would now be surprised
to be told that an answer is testi-
mony. I cannot think that congress
so intended. II is not likely that i'm
munity was intended to depend on
whether a pleader omitted to waive
AN oath, or that It is important
whether such omission was deliberate
or inadvertent.
II feel confident that the construc-
ton l have adopted will not cripple
any necessary governmental activity.
/ have not been able to conceive
case where It will be necessary to
get information regarding q crime by
filing a bill and demanding answer
under oath.
Defendants, under such bill as
was fled here, are not, with my con-
struction Of the immunity statute, in
danger of losing any constitutional
right. They may absolutely refuse to
incriminate themselves by any state
ment, by whatever name Il may be
called, and with or without oath. It
may not be pleasant to take that posi-
ton, but such Is the constitutional
method of preserving q constitutional
right. All the pleas Of immunity are
overruled."