The Sentinel=record., 1911-03-23
PACKERS ID
 FACE CHARGE
IMMUNITY BATH" OF 1906 HELD NOT TO PROHIBIT FACTS AS
 EVIDENCE.
Indictments Charge Conspiracy ts Violate sherman Antitrust Statute--Government Asks
 Trial Soon.

Chicago, March 22.-Judge Geo. A. Carpenter in the United States Dis trict Count, in refusing to quash the indictments against the ten Chicago packers, today placed a limit on the freedom from liability granted the packers in the immunity bath" given by Judge Otis Humphrey in 1906.
 He also ruled that the immunity bata" did not prohibit the facts and evidence on which it was granted be- ing used as evidence to establish proof of conspiracy existing at a date after the immunity was given.
 The ruling, which is in the form of an interlocutory decree from which there is no appeal, means that the packers will have to go to trial on the indictments charging them with conspiracy to violate the sherman antitrust law. There are also three indictments. in the first of which are five counts. The defendants can be fined $5.0OO or imprisoned for one year on each of the counts.
 Counsel for the packers sought 70 quash the indictments on the ground that immunity granted by Judge Hum phrey prevented the government us ing as evidence anything that took place before 1906
 Judge Carpenter, in his decision held that udge Humphrey could nct grant the packers immunity to con tinue indefinitely nan unlawful un dertaking and that the immunity did not apply to acts committed Hfter 1906 as result of the conspiracy
 The evidence given to Judge Hum phrey could not relate to facts that could not have taken place at that time, and the court ruled that while the bath purged the acts of their the physical existence of the facts could not be obnterated and that there was no legal reason why evidence of the facts could not be used to establish conspiracy alleged to have been in operation subsequent to the bath"
 Attorneys for the government, after the ruling filed demurrer and the pleas in abatement were dismissed. On Monday the government will ask for an immediate trial.
 In his decision Judge Carpenter said:
 "The question is this:
 Was the immunity granted so per feet that they may continue indeti- nitely in their unlawful undertaking, if such an admission was the nature of their evidence before tle grand jury?
 Clearly, if the present indictment contemplates a crime supposed to have been committed within thres years prior to its return, and it clear ly does, then the old immune evi- dence did not and could not relate to the offense charged.
 "A conspiracy to accomplish an un- lawful act is, in it's nature, a con tinuing act and it continues until abandoned or its object is accomplish ed. So long as the parties contem- plate further action to the attainmen' of their ultimate object, the agree ment exists, and his further action may consist alone in accepting the benefits of the agreement"
 Not only did Judge Carpenter rule that immunity existed only for the uIiia wfui acts committed before tht issuance of the indictment under which they obtained immunity. bu he decided for the first time that tn, acts testified to and which were "mads puf2 anu ihcdpdDit ul oubJcttiHS eh' doers to criminal prosecution" eoult be used in future prosecutions. H' said, however, they could be used t show only the original conspiracy, { continuation of the conspiracy beyon, the time of immunity, being the sub ject of the future prosecution. H. said:
 The continued operation of the un lawful combination, notwithstandin' the former conviction, is in itself [ new violation of law Immunity doe not mean license: if it did. to con fess ones crime is to give him per petual permission to violate law. If the claimed immunity does no