Show SPECIAL ON BEff PACKERS President Declares Result of Re Rc Recent cent Trial in Chicago a Mis Miscarriage Miscarriage carriage of Justice SEVERE ON JUDGE HUMPHREY Can 11 Hardly 1111 luI JI 1111 In II IliN 11 Cic a Will 1 bo 10 lowed b Oilier April Apri 18 1811 In n I Ir HaKO delivered to 10 tho Ilu Congress to 10 duy dur President declares the he heres result res lt of the recent trial ot pr the th beef packers In II Chicago was wu n IL of lt and that the tho Inter Interpretation by Humphrey on the Iho wilt 11 of Congress Is Ilch such as 11 to 10 Ink that will wi aU abortive The rhe message which Is I of ot a IL most sensational character IH II bated a large largely la ly Iy on a n letter It r to 10 pi evident Alt Moody In II which h tho 11 thi tl Ings of the Iho use CUPI of u the government against tho beef The Jho l dent says It I Is 11 clear 11 Ni that no 10 tu lu as what he hc did ld was In of or n I duty Imposed on QI him hll by b Congress He 10 sharply however to II the decision lol of ot Julo Humphrey that CUl Jon nN nut lul Jae such a 1 decision that bo ho could hardly bo he IIvo that thit the rulings of Judge Humph Humphrey rey 10 will wi bo followed by h other Judges JUrCI lie le declared that such of ot the thu law liw JIN il thai thit placed on ni it by b Judge Humphrey comes in lII near making makinA the law III u I farce 11 ho recommends that Congress pass pa H n a net stating Its Il real Intention tion The rho olMi tH Con gros Ir to tho Iho government by br Matute tho Iho same light of In II criminal which the Iho now thu Iho merits meris of f the tw cases ases havo hau not been TEXT OF O The rhe full text of oC the tho fol follows lows III To o the Iw clale and 1111 House of ot l Representatives ro Hen II t I submit 1 tetter 1101 ot of tho enclosing u a state statement ment of the tho Ino of uC til 11 United States against the Individuals and 1111 cor CO positions known im M the Hect and 1111 upon the Ihu decision of or District nl Judge Julu Hum Humphrey The ll bus been hell n Ils of ut Justice jUstko It I clearly appears the Iw letter of or the til thit Ihal no whatever attaches to what he hc did In Uriel accordance with the Iho aw Ild In of a duty Iut on 11 him 1111 by Congress which could I not be IH avoided I and Ild of o course Congress In 11 passing pa the Martin resolution could not nol possibly have tho decision of ot Judge Humphrey CONOm SS WILL ANNULLED Hut Bul this NI by Judge of or the of the t Humphrey will 11 Countess ns a sox make that wit b hluch fortunately there Is II grave Iri doubt whether er el the thc government nt has the right of or op 1 from decision de ot the district JwU The wel well the desirability of IC upon POI the th the right of appeal In 11 criminal on questions of law Il v the defendant now has In II all al whore Ihor the he I defendant has not notI I 1 ecu ln put In Jeopardy by b a I trial upon 1101 merits meris of the charge made him The he of or many of the states find nHI tho Iho law la of ot the District of enacted endel by hy the Congress give glo the tho government the light of appeal A general law 11 of the Indicated ed Id should certainly be enacted It I Is very desirable to enact a 1 law declaring the Iho tru tr j con construction of If tha tho existing legislation so far as IS II I affects Immunity OPINION Oll l OF I can cal hardly believe but the ruling of 1 Judge Humphrey will wil be followed by hy other uthel Judges J 11 gH but If It 1 should bo 10 followed the result Would bo he cither completely to tt nullify ull very 1 much luch and Inel Ilo tho major purt of n the tho good to bu 10 obtained from tho lio Interstate luter lalo commerce law nd from the Iho law li cre creating CI the bureau iu of corporations lu 11 tho if f commerce und lahore or e else frequently to 10 obstruct nn to tn tho criminal laws by b the Iho department of Justice There seems to 10 bo no 10 good reason why wh the tho department of ot justice tho department nf comm lOII ree II labor und the thc commerce MUM 1101 each cuch should not for the th common COl 10 1 good proceed within It II own without undue with the tho functions of If the other othor It HIM Is of OUI Q necessary loce under th tho Constitution tho laws lawI that persons who tes testimony or 01 produce Ilo evidence ns al wit witnesses nesses nC Ic should receive Immunity from prosecution It I liar har hitherto boon that thai tho Immunity conferred by existing wan wal only Upon pen persons who being subpoenaed hael given Its tes or 01 produced evidence ns lS wit witnesses wl nesses relating hit to 10 ni offense with which they lie were ero or might bo 10 Hut Judge decision Is IH In effect that thil If Ir either the tho commissioner of corporations dON his duty or the commerce commission does Ilo It I by making the tho Investigation which they tie by b law II lire are required to make luke though they Issue no 10 and no testimony or evidence within the llor meaning of those word the very cry fact of the thc Investigation may of ot Itself operate to prevent the tho prose prue prosecution cution of ot nn offender for fOl ulY which may havo been bel developed In II even 01 the moK 1011 Indirect manner during the Ihl course of oC the tho Investigation or von oven for tor any an offense o which may 11 havo hl hen been detected by Investigations conducted by b tho department of oC entirely Independently II of ot the Iho labors of tho In ler llo commerce commission or ot of the commissioner of corporations tho only condition of o immunity being that the offender should have or directed to hl given motion which related to 10 the hl su out oll of which tho has gr TM m OF 01 In rn offenses oten 1 of ot this kind It 1 In I at thu best br L hard enough elough to expect to In visit vial Jus JI tro upon offender 1 system e of ot criminal Ju Jurisprudence Im dc to us UI from n I period when the danger was wal lest I t the should not nul have his hil rights adequately preserved Is bl framed to tu meet lel danger Hut Bul nt present the tho danger lallOr M II Just jUtt th reverse that Is IH the danger now ow Is I not Innocent men lel will wl bo be lOn con convicted of crime hut that the guilty Rul ty man manwill lal will wi no An scot elot free This Is tho can II where the tho crimI Is III one of or cunning perpetrated by br u II mini of wealth In the tho course COli rHO of at those operations whore the Iho code rudo of conduct Is nt variance not merely with the code lle of or hum and morality lit y bin with the thi code ns nil In tho Iho buy h of ot the theland thelAnd land It 11 11 s much easier IR lor but lets effer TN to proceed n corporation corpor to proceed against tho Individuals 1 In III that tho ar them Ip for fI wrol doing dolne Very cn persons who have no knowledge ut ot tho f and no responsibility for the success of the I I uro apt to 10 for tor uc tIC the tho Individuals WUI CURTAIN TN The fhe deportment of Justice has hils mont mo t wisely wise Invariably refused thun thul to pro Id against t Individual unless It Il wan wall both they wern In fact guilty and that thare was nt nl least a chance of establishing e thin fia t of o their guilt guill The beer beef packing I a rs one of the very 11 few fow In III where there ther WIlH not only the certainty that the men wort Vert guilty but JUl what 1 and now senus legal evidence of ot the fuel fal Hut In III obedience to the explicit c or order tier der of tho Congress tIll the commissioner of or corporations hut luid Investigated tho Iho beet parking business II The rho counsel for tor Iho tho beef puckers explicitly hilt bat wan no dilim that promise of ot Immunity had been hellI given by J Mr Ir an nIl chown by the following ol ot during the of the at ai Mr 11 I dismiss al 11 almost most with n word 1 the claim that Mr rr Immunity I n It Whether is only Oil evidence or such a el or UI not I 1 lo 10 not 1101 know anil I r do not Mr 11 Miller the counsel for tho J C piu There Is I no claim of It II Mr 11 Then I T UN mistaken tn and ancl will not even nay Hay thai word ALMOST L IOS A 1 lint Judge 11 U holds hol If It the 1111 commissioner of ot corporations corpora ilOnA nn 1 therefore If thA did In III the of Investigation prescribed any of a n not lIot eal rt r rA A or ask any IIII questions of u 1 called ns u II 1 I Ii with rc to the action of ot the on a subject out of which h may then thell the fact of question having been asked aw fill a hal bap to the prosecution of Oll or I of that thal of the for his hili own mi lelII SUC l In of the law lal comes comell measurably r ruhl ably uhl near lI Ar making the III n a 1111 I t therefore recommend the Ft n declaratory art stating Its It Intention The White House April 17 1908 1906 |