Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1941-03-13
Medical Trial
Adjourned on
Defense Plea
Admission of 6. H. A.
illegally Evidence
Up Tomorrow
By HAROLD B. ROGERS.

Justice James M. Proctor shortly
before noon today adjourned the
medical antitrust trial in District
Court until tomorrow to give defense
counsel time to prepare a summary
Of the mass of evidence on the al
legged illegality of Group Health AS
ISOLATION and their arguments fol
its introduction as a relevant issue
In the defense.
Prosecution counsel has strongly
opposed the introduction of this evil
dence as side issue in the case.
The evidence in question, already
brought to the court from the Home
Owners Loan Corp, from the Gen
eral Accounting Office and from
Congress, revolves principally around
$4,000 advanced by the H. o. L. c.
to G.. H. A. to establish a clinic for
medical and hospital care of Gov
eminent workers.
This $4,000 advance was char
acterized by defense counsel in
arguments early today as an illegal
diversion of funds, although there
was no possibility of any punish
ment being melted out to those who
transferred it.
Court Decision Cited.
On the other hand, a Government
prosecutor, John Henry Levin, de-
clared it had been legally spent and
that G. H. A. had been declared legal
In District Court by Justice Jennings
Bailey. He contended that for the
purpose of argument on the anti
trust conspiracy case against or
ganized medicine, charged with a
boycott against G. H. A, it was i'm
material whether G.. H A. had been
legal or not. He pointed to Su-
preme Court decisions as precedents
for this.
Seth w. Richardson of defense
counsel submitted a comprehensive
argument in support of the defend
ant doctors right to get the facts
regarding G. H. A. into the record
OF the case. He declared that be-
cause Of their belief" that G. H. A
was illegal, the defendants had per-
formed certain acts which he de-
scribed as lawful in the proper regu.
lstion of professional services.
The doctors on trial, who are
members of the American Medical
Association and the District Med
tcal Society, were said by Mr.. Rich
ardson to have been given certain
rights in Court of Appeals deci-
sion which validated the indictment
against them. Among these rights
he listed persuasion, argument and
reasonable regulation of professional
services. He contended that in line
with these privileges granted them
by the higher court, they should
have the right to bring into their
trial all facts regarding G. H. A. to
help prove their contentious that
they were not guilty of a boycott in
restraint of G. H A.
Evidence Believed Important.
The defendants, charged with vio-
iation of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, include the American Medical
Association, the District of Column
bia Society and 18 individual doc
tors, including five officials of the
A. M. A. and Is Washington
physicians.
When court was adjourned short
~ before noon, defense counsel in
dictated they would prepare theil
statement regarding the evidence
and their reasons for its introduction
and have it ready for Justice Proctor
early tomorrow morning. Court will
resume at 10 am, but without the
Jury, which was dismissed until 80
pm. tomorrow. The morning is ex-
pected to be taken up by counsel in
further argument on admissability
of evidence.
The jurist indicated that he felt
the issue of admissability of this
evidence was highly important, but
gave no sign as to how he will rule.
Unable to Proceed.
William E. Leahy, defense counsel
who has been conducting the case
before the jury, was asked by JUS
tice Proctor if he could continue
with the presentation of witnesses
for the rest of today, leaving until
later decision on the admissability
Of the H. o. L. c. evidence. Mr.
Leahy thought this could not be
done because, he told the court, "the
testimony of every single one of the
witnesses necessarily involves that
question .. If the decision is
against us and this evidence is not
admitted to the record, we will have
to reconstruct our case"
Justice Proctor, considering the
matter as something well have to
deal with" said there was mo use
going on with several days of evil
dence on this matter if I should
finally hold it improper" The jurist
asked the defense to give him an
outline of what the evidence shows
TO summarize it and to indicate what
the defense expects to prove.
Mr.. Levin, in his argument when
court opened this morning, in the
absence of the jury, declared that
the II. o. L. C. definitely was mot
exceeding It's power" The question
he said, had been definitely cleared
up. But, the Government prosecutor
commended, even If G. H. A. had been
improper, the defense could not JUS
tify the alleged boycott, and the COLI
tention of G.. H. A. being illegal
"would be completely immaterial."
mot Wholly Bad"
Mr.. Levin, while insisting the
Government had already established
proof of the alleged boycott, declared
regarding the defendants: I'VE
never contended that these gentle
men were wholly bad, that the A. M.
A. was wholly bad. They may have
done very beneficial things, and
these gentlemen in their heart Of
hearts may have thought they were
doing a good thing for their profess
sion, but that is irrelevant to the
case. For if they consciously in
tended to do those things and the
necessary result was to destroy a
form of competition, then the Sher-
man Act takes hold and that's the