OCR Text |
Show JUDGE HUMPHREY'S RULING. The decision of Judge Humphrey in the bocf packers' cases In Chicago appears ap-pears to be strictly in conformity with the decision of the XT. S, Supreme Court which we commented upon yesterday. That Court decided In tho paper trust case. In effect, that Individuals may plead immunity from Judicial inquiry that corporations cannot plead; and so tho Court released the Individuals, but held the corporation to strict account. ItB books and papers can be brought Into court by compulsory process; and Us doings rigidly Inquired into. Its employees em-ployees aro not to be shielded from testifying tes-tifying because the questions they are askod would bring them Into ill repute to answer, nor Ih ono to bo excused from answering even If to answor would show him to bo an unfaithful servnnt or would disgrace him. This lino la drawn at the Constitutional prohibition pro-hibition of compelling a witness to testify tes-tify against himself in a criminal pros-I pros-I ecutlon. Undor this doetrlne Judge Humphrey acted. It Is not In the least to bo assumed as-sumed that the corporations will be treated leniently because the persons operating them have been released. On that the corporations aro to bo made that the corporations aro to be held to answer to ttte Government. They can bo dealt with by the Court, and no doubt will be; and the witnesses will not be able to shield themselves from answering, by petty pleas that In their judgment to answer would disgrace them. With the doctrine laid down by the U. S. Supreme Court, Judge Humphrey Hum-phrey seems to be In strict accord, and the prospects aro that the prosecution against the corporations will be a vigorous vig-orous one. |