| Show MR R. R MOODY Will MAKE V General Attorney to Appear k iJ Personally in the tle Packers Packers' Pack- Pack ers ers' Hearing f I DECISION i IS IMPORTANT r v j U Ui t i f- f Go co Will iII sent Pit Sn k It 1 Finding iLl III Tobacco t. t 1 n I Trusts Trust's Ca Case c. c I. I ff Chicago o. March 13 Argument on i aIL n. n bo ho directed to lo re ret return re- re IL motion that thul th II nry t J turn In a verdict In favor o fa I oC ot tho the govern govern- llio tho JO packers i- i ln 1 m lii their heir Immunity plea Is to bo le m made natle 2 personally by United States Slates Attorney General William II Mood Moody This was L' L learned today when tho tito proceedings were resumed before Judge Humphrey r in III the United States district court Mr 11 J foody appeared In tn court with advices nd T from Washington which he had rec re- re c ln the lay day before that the supreme I t court in the tho cases ca les of or the tho tobacco and II paper paler pcr trusts hail had held that a corporation corpo- corpo I ration Is 18 not ent entitled to Immunity ty f e j I- I When hen risked asked l about th the ruling the at- at r general benny he Intended to lo re- re servo erve hI his comments until he lie begun his 1 k argument U before beloro Judge Humphrey Is Counter Motion ti lot ot itIl it The governments government's motion notion I Is counter tn to one nile HI made by Attorney John S. S Mulct Mil Mu- i lct that the tho Jury JUl h be directed to return 1 n Lt l verdict In favor ol of or the packers thus t l sustaining u g their plea ilea of oC Immunity Mr II 1 Miller l continued hi his hiM al argument today W Attorneys s 's for fOi the thC packers expressed Cl ho till belief today Imlay that thai the supreme court decision on oil Immunity does not i lally alT affect UH ease case a e of oC their clients While we ve have ha hanht ni t had lial the tIll full Cull text of oC Iho the decision and cannot tell Just cx- cx oj l what it decides decide r I jull judge from Crom the ther r L advance dispatches 1 that ha l that particular ia l' l C case 1 n has no nn hearing bearing on the thC present V I J l said lI one flO of or the tle attorneys s 's for forko ko We itle pack packers As s 8 I un understand er It the cases just 1 5 Wc c cemin cetan witnesses 1 s refused to Rive give il i certain Information n fi a as to a corpora corpora- Jid JILl MOM naming claiming protection of it the t on the round ground of oC In self elimination The court held 1111 that a I iti Is not nOlt entitled to lo immunity 1 Hl that protection of or Ih the amendment f to individuals only k 1 n. Ca Cac- Cac e I Thc lh points Involved olve ii in the pr present nt arc ate entire entirely different Th The Tue if rr present l hearing hc is the first since the C establishment 01 oT lh the bureau of or corporations corporations corpo- corpo t. t rations rations- and the the question question to be lie settled 1 la Is whether evidence Riven hell by y th the pack pack- 1 ft un under fl compulsion 1011 or II the production CI tion lut of f books dill IHl not give she the Ue l acl lO 1 within the of tile the thela J law la v At the afternoon session u A Attorney Miller concluded his al' al argument and George W W. Brown BIown attorney for Morris It Co argued that in questions where I I Constitutional li rights are ire are Involved oh d it t VAS WS a n rule of law lo to construe the lat lat- nt- nt 1 u ut ulo relating to 10 immunity rather for Cor the v ts tha t tu-tt tu Ii fUl i. i 1110 0 J t i it lIs cave At r fl Bl er UIt r Hs l the au of corporations 0 or 01 involuntary in the moan moan- i r 1 of t the h la law U If a person on perform an anzi hl F zi H act t which th the law IS makes maks It hl his duty dUly tir 1 to perform lion thun such ur act acl cannot be Ito I I 1 Considered C a voluntary net oct Mr MI Er Gar Gar- n lott letter r from roiti Washington n to Mor- Mor tl 18 j Co requiring Information was t to c counsels counsel's l nS ls lN construction f 1 rl art ait net act of or compulsion ion and alid Mor- Mor ris res t Co Cn knew they could be he compelled Q I information should th thc re re- re Cu fuse Je 4 ln c ill Argument t I t S District Attorney Morrison on bc begun un tim for fo the government nt at r- r t i 1 5 p. p Iii in He lie said alel that the th fifth amendment upon which the opposing 1 t i I counsel based their theil argument for Jut ini- I melI merely contained the sentence S that no lou man should he be compelled to lo testify against himself The The- defendant defend flutE ant tnt h he wild sought hl a broad construeS construction construe construe- t. t S t tion of the lawIn law Jaw r In Eu II order r to lo obtain Immunity there hn has never yet el been a caw case decided wh where ro the person was wm not put under L oath anti and If the court decides so 1 o in Iii this li Is r- r M ease raso alC it will be ho the t first l. l t tune time that Im Immunity un- un Ft I has lins boon heun granted without f i oath lh suld MI Mr Morrison Court adjourned before he had hall fin fin- hl liln argument |
