New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-04-30
J. g. Elton and w. Skinner
AbsOlved from Charge
in Antitrust Case.
RELIEF DENIED TO
EDWARD D. ROBBINS
Judge Hunts Decision Surprises
Federal Prosecutor - Ap.
peal May Be Taken.

James s. Elton, of Waterbury. Conn,
and William Skinner, of Hclyoke,
Mass, have been granted immunity
from prosecution under the indictme ent,
charging them, as directors of the New
York, New Haven & Hartford Rail-
road, with having violated the Sherman
Antitrust law. In an opinion filed
late yesterday afternoon in the crimi-
nal branch of the Federal Court, Judge
William II. Hunt overrules demurrers
interposed by Frank NJ. Swacker, As
sstant United States Attorney Gen
raj, in the case of tnese two directors.
In an accompanying opinion, how
ever, Judge Hunt sustained the gov
ernment demurrer, put in to the plea
of immunity made by Edward d. Rob
bins, a director and formerly general
counsel to the New Haven.
Judge Hunt rules that Elton and
skinner obtained immunity by being
witnesses at the hearing held by the
Interstate Commerce Commission as 10
prices. rates and other affairs of the
New Haven company and other New
England corporations. In the case of
Robbins's plea it is held that circum-
stances do not show that he ever meant
70 claim Constitutional privileges.
Billiard May Plead in Bar.
In view of immunity baths for Elton
and Skinner, il is expected that John
/. Billiard will enter a plea in bar to
the superseding indictment. He was
also n witness at the Interstate Com
merce Commissions hearing, and for
that reason claimed immunity from
prosecution under the original Sher-
man law indictment. This plea was de-
MED by Judge william 7. Grubb in a
decision handed down Jauary 4, which
also disposed of the pleas put in by
Elton and Skinner.
William Rockefeller is another New
Haven director under indictment. In
view of his success in avoiding being a
witness before the Interstate Com
merce Commission, however, he will
not be eligible for immunity under the
new ruling.
The governments prosecutors, sur
prised by Judge Hunts decision, may
appeal,
NDpCldl interest rs dlldCHtu " JbNB
Hunts finding in the case Of Robbins
! who was general counsel for the New
Haven all the time that the road. under
the leadership of Charles 5. Meilen,
was obtaining control OF New England
transportation on land and water. He
represented the railroa' in the Con-
necticut Legislature.
"The circumstances do not show that
I H.. az tttt 10 " "a
privilege" says Judge Hunt. AT the
Interstate Commerce Commission in
vestigation he was called as witness
by the New Haven company, and as
such was cross-examined. When called
by the grand jury to produce the com
pany's papers he wanted to testify
but was not allowed to do so, and later
on. when before the grand jury. he tes-
tilted with asserting his constitutional
privilege"
Upholds Grubb on Immunity.
In these words Judge Hunt substanti-
ates the rule of Judge Grubb in the
January decision that immunity hows
only TO witnesses who may refuse 10
testify without it being assured.
While Elton and Skinner did not
claim Constitutional privilege wher
called. they had reason to believe that
they would get immunity, the Hunt
decision says. Some sort Of under
standing was reached between John W
II. Grim. President Mellen's counsel
and Solicitor Folk. Grim, while repre-
senting Mellen before the Interstate
Commerce Commission. also appeared
in the interest of the directors.
After discussing at some length the
| option or privilege Of witness under
| the Fifth Amendment TO the Constitu
/ ton, Judge Hunt says:
"The immunity statute was passec
with regard for the construction pu
upon the Fifth Amendment and in thu
knowledge that the assertion of th'
privilege before examination is in It
self important, and that, unless the
privilege is asserted the witness vii
be given no immunity, and should h'
testify only after the denial of the
privilege, then only can he say thai
| his evidence is compulsorily furnis he'd
and that, therefore. he is entitled I,
/ immunity. Thus option may rest witt
the government and may not be exer
cised until after the witness has as
serted privileRe"