Norwich bulletin., 1911-11-17
A Short Cut to
 Supreme Court
BEEF PACKERS ENDEAvoRiNo TO
 ACCOMPLISH IT,
SAYS GOVERNMENT COUNSEL
Habeas Corpus Petition Vigorously Opposed by Attorney Sheehao- Packers Raise Cry of Hardship.

Chicago, Nov. 16.-Putting a ques- tion of fact against question of law, and advocating the public welfare against an allegation of selfish, pecu- niary motives. lawyers for the indicted Chicago packers fought the govern ments counsel today in an effort to obtain a final ruling on the criminal clause in the Sherman antitrust act from the United States supreme court before the packers go to trial
 Arguments Not Finished.
 The court room of United States Cir cult Judge c. c. Kohlsaat was the battle ground for clashing forces of legal knowledge. When the court day ended both sides claimed the advant- age. The arguments will be resumed tomorrow morning.
 Contention of Packers.
 The question of fact advanced by counsel for the packers was to the ef- feet that the defendants really were under restraint for one hour last Monday, after they had been surren.i cred by their bondsmen. and they Were therefore, subject to the operation of the habeas corpus law
 Not Legally Under Restraint.
 Against this, lawyers for the govern ment declared that as a question Df law, the packers had no right to use method of surrender was illegal i.rd therefore, legally. they were not un der restraint
 Business Welfare Demands Early RuI- ing.
 After they had threshed out these knotty points, the lawyers proceeded to point out two widely different pilf- poses which they said actuated :he packers in petitioning for the writ of habeas corpus. Levy Mayer or ccIIn- seI for the indicted men said shat the welfare of business in all lines the nd 1rIf possible ruling by the United States supreme court upon the validity of the criminal clause of the Sherman anti trust act.
 Sheehan Opposes Petition.
 Attorney Sheehan in his argument sharply criticised portion If the packers petition. especially the follow ing paragraph:
 That the trial of your petitioners on said indictments will consume at least SIX months in the district court and will necessitate the hearing of many hundreds of witnesses and will be costly to the United States and to yo'if petitioners. and will entail great an1 endless hardship upon them, all of which will be a complete loss and waste if said act of congress is uncon- and void, as hereinoefore set forth, that the questions hereln in voIved have not been determined by the supreme court and the case pre- sents special circumstances and is ona of exceptional importance.
 Want Short Cut to Supreme Court.
 s'Sifted down, what does this mean "- asked the attorney
 Tt means simply that because of the cost to these defendants it this matter takes its regular course. tIiey set up that the writ should issue to provide a short cut to the suprena court. The mere charge that it is ex- pensive is no reason for lifting this case from the district court to -he cir cult court. with the purpose of provid- l ing a short cut to the United States 1 court"
 Constitutional Question Raised.
 Levy Mayer presented arguments for | the defendants in reply to Attorney Shechan. He took up the decision by | United States District Judge Car, en- | ter on May F. 1911. in refusing to | grant the application by the packers 1 for a demurrer based on the decision | by the federal supreme court m the | Standard Oil case. 'sWe believe .Iral | we can satisfy you that the learned | district judge fell into error in his ruf- ing" said Attorney Mayer, when he | held that the criminal clause of the Sherman antitrust act was constitu- -ional. Want Constitutionality Determined.
 We desire to get a quick short md decisive way of adjudicating the question of the ccnstitutionality Jf rhis aw. If that be an offense, we uncovc, 1ur heads and take the consequences.''