Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-11-21
MAY SEEK FOR IMMUNITY
Suggested That They Want to Be
Forced to Testify.
CANNOT HELP CIVIL SUIT
Government Privileged to Use Evil
dence Given in Action to Dis
solve the Alleged Trust.


steel trust in Directing to n continuance
of the hearing before the Hou of Repre-
sentatives investigating coclmittee? This
is the question in official Washington to-
day
Are the steel trust officials. it is asked,
trying to strengthen their plea of i'm
munity from criminal prosecution given
them by the law by bringing about a con-
dition where the House committee will
have TO force them to apear ana testify?
Section $50 of the Revised Statutes of
the United States provides:
NO testimony given by a. witness be-
fore either house. or before any commit
tee of either house of Congress, shall be
used as evidence in any criminal proc ed
ing against him in any court, except In
prosecution for perjury committed in siE-
ing such testimony. But an official paper
of record produced by him is not within
the said privilege
Immunity From Prosecution.
It is generally believed that immunity
from criminal prosecution would be given
to every steel trust official for dongs
disclosed to the House committee, whether
he was compelled to appear before the
committee and was sworn or not.
When United States Judge Humphrey
gave the beef trust officials their I'M
munity dip IN 1906. he said that a
subpoena and an oath were not neces-
for everything they had confessed to
Commissioner of Corporations Garfield.
And when Congress. in 1906. tackled on
requirement for subpoena and an
oath, the requirement was not made ap-
plicahle to Investigations nv committees
of Congress.
Consequently. the Humphrey decision,
which has never been interfered with.
except in so far as the 1905 act is con-
LEGATIONS by committees Of Congress
whether the witnesses have been sub
Loened and sworn or not.
Are Safe In Testifying.
Moreover, the Humphrey decision gives
immunity to trust officials not only for
unlawful acts confessed in oral testi-
mony, but also for anything disclosed
by their papers and records. That part
of section $780, therefore, which pro-
vides that immunity shall not be given
paper or record. would not hold. in view
OF Judge Humphreys decision. Nor,
indeed, does it agree, 1t is said, with
decisions by the Supreme Court Of the
LUlleQ states.
The steel trust people can. therefore,
appear and testify before the Stan. ely
committee. and produce their records,
with no fear whatever of criminal prose-
cution therefor No summons, no oath,
no compulsion is needed to get such
immunity
From only criminal prosecution, how
ever. is the immunity given. The present
equity suit to break up the steel trust
Is not affected. The government is at
Nhorfv ~ m of OF ho
testimony of the steel trust officials and
the data in their books and papers that
have been spread before the House COM
mittee.
ficials do not want to continue to pile up
before the Stanley investigating commit
tee ammunition that the government can
use In its dissolution suit.
The resolution of the House of Repre-
sentatives Of May, 1911, rected the steel
trust investigating committee to find out
whether there have occurred violations
Of law by the steel trust, which have
not been prosecuted by the executive
officers Of the government"
Committee Not Excused.
Perhaps the steel trust people feel that
inasmuch as the government is now pro-
ceetling against them in civil suit. this
proceeding is equivalent to such prose
Cu1lOn as Will make 1uTtner action py
the House committee unnecessary. The
resolution does not, however, excuse the
committee from a continuance OF the
duty of investigating alleged violations
Of law, which at the time OF the resolu-
ton had not been prosecuted. The res0-
luton does not refer to future proSecu-
tons More than that, prosecute" Is
believed to refer to a criminal prosecution
instead of an equity proceeding.
The tasks set by the House resolution
for the Stanley committee are hard The
mere asking of intelligent questions on
as are connected with the steel business
requires much more than superficial
knowledge of law, of economics and OF
accounting.
Expert assistance has been necessary
to bring out the testimony. Chairman
Stanley says that the committee has been
paying special investigator 500 month
and an expert accountant, who knows
how to audit the books of the trust, $50 a
day Such services, he claims, cannot be
had for less money and that they are, as
q matter of fact mere bagatelle COM
pared with what the steel trust is re-
ported to have spent for an audit of their
books, $200,OOO
Specific authority is given the commit
tee by the resolution to compel the at
and papers and to administer oaths to
witnesses"
Whether or not the committee will ex-
ercise this compulsion is under consid-
GRAFTON by the members. and the motives
Of the steel trust in inviting such COM
pulsion will doubtless play no small part
| in the conference.