The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1912-02-28
GOVERNMENT FIGHTS HARD
. TO PREVENT DISCHARGE OF
REMAINING BATHTUB MEN
Testified of Own Accord in Civil
Suit and Can't Claim Immu-
nifty, Says Grosvenor
DECISION ON THURSDAY
Prosecution Contends Agree
ment Signed by Defendants
Was in Restraint of Trade

Whether Judge Angel will dismiss
the cases against the remaining Ge-
PENDANTS, In the bathtub trust trial,
as requested by counsel for the de-
tense, or direct that they be disposed
OF by the jury, will not be known un-
til Thursday morning, at the earliest.
The arguments of the defense were
not concluded until Tuesday after
noon, and the prosecution will not be
through with its side OF the question
until sometime this afternoon. Tie
Jury assembled as usual, Wednesday
morning, and was further excused un-
I'll o'clock. Thursday morning.
Edwin Z. Grosvenor, an assistant
TO the United States attorney-general,
in.opening the argument for the gov
ernment, took up the matter OF I'M
munity for the defendants, the point
having been raised by Attorney John
p. Hunter, for the defense, Tuesday
afternoon. Mr.. Hunter contended that
the defendants were entitled to i'm
munity. inasmuch as they had given
testimony for the government In the
civil suit against the trust, in Balti-
more. Mr.. Grosvenor argued that The
defendants were not entitled to iHi-
munity, as they were not obliged TO
testify as they did. They were called
by certain persons included in the in
dictment and could have stood on
their constitutional rights not to give
testimony had they chosen to do SO.
Mr.. Grosvenor declared.
Il told them," said Mr.. Grosvenor,
that If they testified they would do
so at their own risk.
Mr.. Grosvenor quoted number or
supreme court decisions and opinions
OF lower court judges in support OF mis-
contention, and then went on 10 the
question OF conspiracy, one OF the
counts In the indictment against the
defendants. He argued at length that
conspiracy had been carried on by
the defendants; that they conspired
TO restrain trade while arranging the
prelimlnaries for the execution or the
license agreement which finally bound
them together. This agreement wars
In restraint OF trade, Mr.. Grosvenor
contended, because IL fixed prices be-
tween the manufacturers and jobbers
and provided that those who signed II
should comply with certain conditions
for the control of the bulk of the en-.
ameled lronware business OF the coun-
try. .-..-.,.-.-.-.-
The manufacturers were just as
much guilty of conspiracy as would
be a number of men who secretly
planned a murder, Mr.. Grosvenor said.
He also made little of the argument
of. the defense that the defendants
had planned the license agreement for
the purpose OF taking seconds OF
the market, $50 that the public would
get better goods for its money. There
was nothing in the agreement about
the improvement OF the trade, Mr..
Grosvenor contended. Concluding his
argumenn he said that the defendants
had carried on the bulk OF its prelim-
mary work in Mt Clemens, and that
he regarded what they had done there
as plain evidence OF conspiracy in
restraint of trade.
Frank II. Watson, also for the prose-
cution, followed Mr.: Grosvenor. He
took up the line OF argument advanced
by the latter, declaring that the al
legged conspiracy began with the first
meeting OF the defendants in Pitts
burgh. Feb. 1, 1870 five months before
the license agreement went into eff.
feet In that meeting and all subse-
quent ones up TO the time of the sign
ing OF the binding agreement, June 8,
1910, the question OF the resale plan
and control of trade was discussed,
he argued. N
Adjournment was taken at noon for
lunch and Mr.. Watson resumed his
argument in the afternoon session.