Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1914-07-15
INDICTMENTS IN
NEW HAVEN CASE
ARE DIFFICULT
F ederaI Government Has Had
Bad Luck With Criminal
Prosecutions Under Anti
Trust Laws, Say Officials
~ posnisd Jouss.l seselAl lsAsso wiss

~ MORNING Jouesth SPECIAL tfAtto wiRtl
Washington. July 1.-THE question
of criminal indictments against direc.
tors Of the New Haven railroad
probably will not be taken up by the
department. Of justice until the con-
elusion Of the negotiations for a
peaceful dissolution of that system.
The fate Of these negotiations Is
said to depend largely upon the ae-
tion Of the New Haven board at
meeting scheduled for New York
| Thursday.
The department cannot reach the
| New Haven directors for any Of the
financial transactions which brought
down upon their heads the condem-
nation OF the Interstate Commerce
commission It can act only through
the antitrust act, which has a see
ton making i a criminal oftense 70
enter into a conpiracy IN restraint OF
trade.
Difficult to Convict.
Past experiences with this section
Of the act has not encouraged law
officials Of the government 10 indiet-
ments for directors or other officials
of alleged combinations which II
sought TO dissolve Juries have been
| lnath to render verdicts of guilty and
judges have not been disposed to iifi-
pose prison sentences
However. the widespread publicity
given TO the New Haven case and the
unqualified assertion Of the Interstate
Commerce commission that the di-
reetors of the New Haven knew that
tthey were acquiring and com ining
lcompetlng properties may put DIFF
lferent aspect on this case,
Statements Not Evidence.
The commissions statements are
| not evidence. hut its conclusions may
raise the question Of how this infof
nation will appeal 10 the grand Jury
lit has been known for months that
1.-THE department of justice Is IN pos
session Of vast amount of intorma-
| ton concerning The New Haven,
which is in accord with the infar-
lmation secured by the commission,
but some Of which is said 10 contra
diet testimony given by prominent
witnesses before the commission
New Haven investigation.
Question of Immunity.
This contradictory evidence, offer
ed to the commission at the time OF
| the Investigation was not accepted,
but e indictments are sought il might
1.-THE question Of whether immunity
lshould be given witnesses who helped
| the commission. If contradiction is
shown clearly some officials believe
| that immunity might not be granted.
Action Not Decided Upon.
! Ii was recalled here tonight that
al the time the commission proposed
to subpoena Charles 5. Mellen and
lother directors of the New Haven,
Attorney General McReynolds made
public q letter 60 the commission In
(which he discussed the effect Of their
appearance upon any criminal prose-
cution which the. government may
desire hereafter TO institute. Mr.. Nc
| Reynolds said he had noticed that the
commission intended TO summon Mr..
Mellen. William Rockefeller George
McCulloch Miller Charles T. Brook
er, Edwin Miner. Lewis Cass Led
tyard, George T. Baker and Edwin D.
Robbins.
| Before this letter was made public
the attorney general was In confer
fence with Senators Kern and Norris,
Commissioner McChord and Chief
Counsel Folk of the Interstate Com
lmerce commission and refused to say
whether he contemplated criminal
prosecutions.