The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-12-05
SHADOW Of JAIL
lhhQYs RICH MEN
CONTINUED from First Pags,)

CONTINUED from First Pags,)
occurred. BY some It IL thought thai
a decision will be handed down to.
morrow. but general opinion i that
the court viii not answer the appeal
until next Monday. "decision day"
In the meantime the packers will
90 to trial on wednesday before
Judge Carpenter. Of the United Slater
District Court, In Chicago.
The application Of the attorneys
for the packers sets forth that the
appeal ID from the flnal order OF
the Circuit Court OF Novembe 81,
1911, which provided that 4 previous
order Of the court. issuing to the
packers q writ OF habeas corpus. b
set aside; that the writ be quashed:
that the bail which had been given
by the petitions be set aside. and
that sureties exonerAted. and that the
petitioners be remanded to the Gus
tody OF their sureties upon bail bonds
previously given In the District Court
upon the indictments pending in that
court
Pending this appeal tho packers
ask for the following relief:
What Packers Ask.
That the operation and effect OF
the court order which quashed the
writ of habeas corpus and dismissed
the petition therefor shall be stayed.
that all further proceedings on the
three indictments returned by the
grand jury on September IL. 1910.
shall be stayed: that the appellants
shall be liberated ON bail; that tho
appellants may have such other or
der or orders and relief as the su-
preme Court shall be disposed 10
grant.
After setting forth that the petition
for q habeas corpus was based on the
grounds that the criminal provisions
OF the antitrust statute on which the
indictments were obtained are uncon-
stitutional and void. the attorneys fol
tho packers assert that unless their
appeal II made supersedeas, the sec
tons Of the statutes which allow an
appeal az 4 matter of right will In
effect be repealed in so far as any
benefit can possibly be derived by APP
pellants.
They call attention to the fact that
the antitrust statute. as construed In
the Standard OH case. leaves II TO be
determined by the Hight of reason In
every given case, whether any par
ticular act or contract was within the
Each Case Separate.
TN other words" say the packers
counsel leach and every given case
must stand on Its own facts. The
officers OF interstate corporations are
thus put in constant jeopardy OF GRIM
inaf prosecution for acts the crini-
nality OF which will depend upon the
shifting views OF different juries. The
shadow Of the penitentiary hangs for.
ever over them"
After citing instances where ths
Supreme Court accepted Jurisdiction
In cases bearing a resemblance to ths
one in hand, on the ground that pub
lie interest demanded they should be
speedily determined. the petition says:
The public interests much more en-
phatically demand that the question
here presented. OF the validity OF thu
criminal provisions of the antt-trusl
statute. should be speedily determined
by this tribunal
The packers assert with emphasii
that they do not stand alone IN theil
desire to have the Supreme Court TAXI
Jurisdiction. particularly at this time
when Congress has Just convened and
fs In . position to enact additional
legislation. II the Supreme Cour,
should hold any OF the provisions OF
the antitrust statute invalid. In this
connection they point out that criminal
prosecutions are now pending and un
determined against the following:
Trust Companies Involved.
American Ice Company offcials In
the District Of Columbia. the Ameri-
can Sugar Refining Company ofI1ciall
In New York. the Brick and PAVING
Block Manufacturers In Chicago the
Milk Dealers In Boston. the Lumber
Association In illinois, tho Wall Pape.
Ofhcials in Cleveland. the Milling and
Elevator Owners In Oklahoma. the
Shoe Machinery ofsicials In Boston
and the bath tub manufacturers in De-
troit.