The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-03-23
Judge Carpenter Declares Void the Packers 'Im-
 munity Bath"
VIOLATION OF ANTI
 TRUST LAW CHARGED
Carpenter Rules That Acts Made "Pure' By Humphrey Can Be Used As Evidence Against
 the Packers

 against the Chicago packers today placed a lmik Jn the freedom from la- blity granted the packers in the i'm munity bath given by Judge Otis Hum phrey In 1906.
 He also ruled that the Immunity bath" did not prohibit the facts and ey- idence on which it was granted being used as evidence to establish proof of a conspiracy existing at date after the immunity was given.
 The ruling, which Is in the form of an interlocutory decree, from which there is no appeals, means that the packers will have to go to trial on indictments charging them with conspiracy to vio- 1 late the sherman antitrust law. There are three indictments, in the first of which are five counts. The defendants can be fined s5O0O or imprisoned for one year on each of the counts.
 l Counsel for the packers sought to quash the indictments on the ground that im- munity granted by Judge Humphrey pre- vented the government using as evidence anything that took place before 19O6.
 Not Immune After 1906
 Judge Carpenter in his decision held that Judge Humphrey could not grant | the packers immunity to continue indefin- itely in an unlawful undertaking. and that the immunity did not apply to acts committed after 1906 as a result of the conspiracy.
 The evidence given to Judge Humphrey could not relate to facts that had not taken place at that time. and the court l ruled that while the bath" purged the acts of their criminality, the physical ex- | istence of the facts could not be oblit- erated, and that there was no legal reason why evidence of the facts could not be used to establish conspiracy all | legged to have been in operation subse- quent to the bath
 Attorneys for the government, after the ruling, filed a demurrer, and the pleas In abatement were dismissed. On Monday the government will ask for an | immediate trial.
 In his decision Judge Carpenter sad: | "rhe question Is: Was the immunity granted so perfect that they may con- tinue indefinitely in their unlawful un- dertaliings. if such admission. was the nature of their evidence before the grand jury?
 "Clearly, If the present indictment con- templates a crime supposed to have been 
 it's return, and 1t clearly does, then the old immune evidence did not and could not relate to the offense charged.
 "A conspiracy to accomplish an unlaw- ful act Is. in it's nature, a continuing act and 1t continues until abandoned or its object is accomplished. So long as the parties contemplate further action to the attainment of their ultimate object the agreement exists and this further action may consist alone in accepting the bene- fits of the agreement"
 Can Use Old Evidence Not only did Judge Carpenter rule that immunity existed only for the unla awful acts committed before tho issuance of the indictment under which they obtained immunity, but he de- cided for the first time that the acts testified to and which were made pure and incapable of subjecting the doers to criminal prosecution" could he used in future prosecutions. He said however. they could be used to show only the original conspiracy. a contin- uation of the conspiracy beyond the time of immunity, was the subject of the future prosecution. He said
 "The continued operation of the un- lawful combination, notwithstanding the former conviction. is in itself a new vein of law Immunity does not mean license; If 1t did. to confess ones crime is to give him perpetual per mission to violate law.
 "If the claimed immunity does not obliterate the physical existence of the fact about which the defendants fur nished evidence, but merely purged them of criminality and render them inherently harmless. there is no legal reason why those facts or the evidence | concerning them, if competent and rele- want, may not be used to trace the history of or establish an unlawful conspiracy charged to have been in | operation In 1910.
 My conclusion is that the immunity was furnished to present and not fu- ture criminals. The motion to quash the indictments will be denied"
 Packers Given 20 Days | The packers were instructed to be in court March 27 and report what action they proposed to take. They were given 20 days by the court in which to file exceptions. the order given today be- ing without appeal.
 The indicted packers are: Louis F. Swift Edward F. Swift, Francis A. Fowler and Charles H. Swift of Swif, & Co.,; Edward Tilden. president of the National Packing company: J. og- den Armour, Arthur Meeker and Thom.. as J. Corners of Amour & Co.,; Edward F. Morris and Louis Heymann of Morris & Go.
 The chief object of the governments attack is the National Packing com pany of which the indicted men are di- rectors or are otherwise interested. It was organized In 1903 with a capital | of S15,000,o00 It Is chiefly holding company and owns or controls, accord ing to the governments claim. 21 other minor companies, including the various Hammond properties, the Anglo Amer ican companies. Detroit Beef company, Fowler company of Kansas City, Unit ed Dressed Beef company of New York, three refrigerating car companies, the St. Louis Dressed Beef and Provision company, Hutchinson Packing company of Kansas City, Continental Packing | company. etc Judge Otis Humphreys immunity de- l cision in the United States circuit court | was given March 21, 1906 The investi- gations into the beef packers really began in 1903, when Judge Peter S.. Grosscup enjoined them from entering Unto a conspiracy to control the in | dustry. | The present indictments-three Of lthem--were returned last September i and there still exists a subsequent in i dictments. returned in December, which was secured by the government to go Into effect should Judge Carpenters $ l line Ia