W!SS'
fpppp
PECEMBER 1, Ull
The Commoner.
A Scandal of American Justice
United States Attorney Henry A. Wise, ad
dressing the National Jeweller board of
trade, gaid:
- "But it has been difficult to gend the rich
to Jail. The Judges evidently think they should
have plenty of warning, and in case after ease
of this kind I have howled in vain for Jail
sentences."
What better proof could there be that this
In the main is Just criticism than Judge
Kohlsaat's action in Chicago in releasing under
$30,000 bonds each the heads of the beef trust
upon writs of habeas corpus?
'What better illustration of the evils of the
fcrw s delay could there be than the bare record
or the government's case against the beef trust?
It was on May 10, 1902, that the governmeat
med a petition for an injunction against the
beef trust. Ten days later a temporary writ
was issued by Judge Grosscup, to which on
Sept. 10 the packers demurred that they were
yj engaged in interstate commerce. Feb. 18,
1903, Judge Grosscup overruled the demurrer
and gave the packers until March 2 to answer.
On March 1, the last day of grace, the packers
announced an appeal to the supreme court of
the United States, but they did not take it; so
on May 27 Judge Grosscup made the injunction
permanent, when the packers finally took their
appeal, having thus gained three months time.
The case slept the rest of that year, and not
until July 25, 1904, did President Roosevelt
order the department of justice to put It on the
supreme court calendar to be tried in October.
It was actually reached in 1905, when on Jan.
4 briefs were filed by the government and the
packers; on Jan. 16 the case was argued, and
on Jan. 31 the court sustained Judge Grosscup,
leaving the way apparently clear for the trial
and punishment of the packers.
Feb. 21, 1905, a special federal grand jury
was called in Chicago to consider evidence
against the packers. March 4 President Roose
velt sent to congress Commissioner Garfield's
report on the beef trust. March 29 T. J. Con
nors, Armour's general superintendent, was in
dicted for meddling with a grand jury witness.
April 14 four Schwarzschild & Sulzberger offi
cials were indicted for interference with the
service of subpoenas in the trust suit.
July 1, 1905, the grand jury indicted seven
teen Individuals and five corporations, who on
Ejept. 4 bbtained an adjournment; they were
"not ready to plead." On Oct. 23 they claimed
immunity on the ground that facts used In
indicting them had been obtained from them
by the bureau of corporations, but on Nov. 17
Attorney General Moody denied this and de
clared that immunity had not been promised.
Meanwhile, on Sept. 21, four beef trust officials
had peaded guilty of rebating and were fined
?25,000 each a trifle to a trust.
The year 1906 began with a beef trust vic
tory. Commissioner Garfield of the bureau of
corporations admitted on Feb. 22 that he had
worked with the department of justice, and on
March 21 Judge Humphrey held that the in
dividuals indicted were therefore immune but
that the indictments against the corporations
stood. Mr. Moody on April 6 decided that no
appeal could be taken, and after the long vaca
tion, on Oct. 13, the department of justice
dropped the case. Four years and a half had
gone for naught.
In 1907 the case was begun all over again
with another federal grand jury in Chicago,
called Sept. 18. No Indictments were made that
time; more .than a year later, Dec. 7, 1908,
another grand jury was called which again
made no indictments; Feb. 19, 1909, still an
other federal grand jury was called to investi
gate rebating and price-fixing; also an effort
was made to prove "that the meat trust exists,
and that the National Packing company is Its
operative machinery."
On March 21, 1910, Attorney General
Wickersham filed a petition against the beef
trust charging restraint of trade, and six
months later, Sept. 12, a new grand jury in
dicted Armour, Swift, Morris and the other
present defendants. A civil suit was also be
gun to dissolve the trust and appoint a receiver
for it. The following day the pckers gave bail
in $30,000 each. , , - T. ,,
. Nov. 17 the packers protested Judge Landls
because, fifteen years earlier he had been a
pecial United States district attorney con
cerned in prosecuting them under the anti-trust
act Dec 15 the indictments were amended.
Dec 24 the defendants claimed the right to havo
the civil suit tried before the criminal one;
Dec. 27 Mr. Wickersham obliged them by order
ing the civil suit dismissed altogether so as
not to Impede tlio criminal suit, but the packers
ungratefully protested against tho dismissal and
were overruled.
In 1911 Judgo Carpenter came Into tho case
by overruling, on Jan. 2, a motion that the
government bo restrained from proceeding
against the packers criminally and, on March
22, a demurrer on tho ground that Judgo
Humphrey's "immunity bath" covered all futuro
time. Judgo Carpenter refused to quash tho
indictment.
By April 13, after nine years, it suddenly
occurred to the packers that tho anti-trust act
did not oreate any new crime, and hence, even
if they were disobeying it, they were com
mitting no criminal act. They threw out tho
suggestion for what it was worth; as again on
May 17 when they asked to have the indict
ments quashed on tho ground that there had
been no "unreasonable" restraint of trade, as
defined in the Standard Oil case decision; and
again when on Juno 3 they filed briefs asking
for a rehearing of their motions to quash tho
Indictments.
However, on July 5 tho packers finally
pleaded not guilty and trial was fixed for Nov.
20. In all these nine years the defendants havo
not yet even been put on trial. The infinlto
resources of delay involved in actual trial and
in fighting Judgment and sentence if a verdict
of guilty Is returned still remain. Those sources
may not even yet be drawn' upon. The packers
desire .a new court test of the Sherman act on
the ground of ambiguity and unconstitutional
ity before they are brought to trial, and for this
purpose the habeas corpus writ was obtained.
The Sherman act has been in force more than
twenty years. It has been tested at every
joint, seam and rivet by the ablest legal minds
of the country and stands the test. It repre
sents the matured purpose and will of the
people at the time it was passed, at the present
time and for as far Into futuro time as any man
can see. Its constitutionality has been affirmed
time after time by the court of last resort.
Yet this most odious of trusts, which draws
its enormous profits from the monopoly and
engrossment of one of the prime necessaries
of life, which extorts Its tribute from rich and
poor alike in every part of the United States,
has been able for more than nine years to use
the law's delay to ward off prosecution, and
today not even the beginning of tho criminal
trial of its chief beneficiaries is in sight.
What a reproach to American government
and American jurisprudence! What a blot
upon the administration of justice! New York
World,
THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PACKERS
Early in 1903 Feb. 18 of that year Judgo
Grosscup Issued an Injunction enjoining the
Chicago packing firms from combining In re
straint of trade. Less than five months after
ward the government presented a federal grand
jury with evidence that they had so combined,
and indictments were voted against them. That
was eight years ago.
Since that time the government and tho
packers have battled back and forth over every
conceivable issue on this question dxcept one
the guilt or innocence of tho defendants.
The packers have been released from prose
cution on an immunity plea, because they gave
the information which was used against them.
They have been released by the Quashing of
faulty indictments. There have been new in
vestigations, new indictments, new court pro
ceedings but not one yet leading to a determi
nation of the question of whether or not they
were or are organized in illegal restraint of
trade No decision of court has had anything
to do' with the Issue raised by the government
over eight years ago.
No decision, so far as can be ascertained, has
changed the method of operation adopted by
the packers, unless the withdrawal of the im
portant officers of the various firms from the
board of the National Packing company be
construed as a change in method due to the
prosecution.
The case stands where it stood when the
government first undertook to prove that an
fllegal combination in restraint of trado existed,
and in eight years It has not reached tho ques
tion of proof.
The conspicuous important gentlemen whoso
operations the Government attacks naturally
approach the main Issue by avoiding It. They
havo a peculiar and distinctive Interest In tho
proceedings. Other groat anti-trust suits havo
sought the dissolution of combinations. This
ono seeks tho punishment of tho mon respon
sible for the allegod combination.
Tho contention of counsel for tho dofendanU
is that tho "great law abiding and successful
merchants" who are their clients havo done
nothing hut what was "morally and commerci
ally right"; that It is Inconceivable that tho
Sherman anti-trust law is to bo used as a not
to draw in all and sundry for Juries to pick and
chooso Urn guilty from tho righteous, and that
as a criminal statuto tho law is unconstitutional.
At the threshold of the trial court, whoro
tho guilt or innocence of tho defendants was
to bo determined, another Issue is interposed.
To another generation than thin It may bo
given to know whether the packers of Chicago
wore or are combined In Illegal restraint of
trado. Chicago Tribune.
IN NEBRASKA
The Omaha World-IIorald prints tho follow
ing letter:
"Orleans, Nob., Nov. 23. To tho Editor of
tho World-Herald: I havo concluded to becomo
a candidato for one of the two places of dis
trict delegate to the democratic national con
vention, representing the Fifth Nebraska dis
trict. I think that ovory candidate for a seat
in the national convention should mako his
position clear to tho end that democrats may
know just what they may expect of hi when
it comes to voting for a candidato and adopting
a platform. I therefore ask you to print my
letter in order that Fifth district democrats
generally may read it. I think tho democratic
national platform for 1912 should be framed
with tho greatest caro and that it should bo
tho Denver platform of 1908 brought down to
date, and should plainly represent tho demo
cratic spirit which has made Nebraska famous
under Mr. Bryan's leadership and has brought
to the national party the credit for a willingness
to take the peoplo Into its confidence. If I
have a half a chance I will cast my voto for
Bryan as tho democratic candidato for 1912.
If I can not get him then I will voto for some
other man who stands for tho things Mr. Bryan
stands for and best represents democratic prin
ciples as we have learned them in Nebraska.
Accepting Mr. Bryan as a loader who will never
lead the party into the camp of tho trusts I
will, if elected to sorvo with him as a delegate
to tho national convention, do everything jfi
my power to help him in the fight which wo all
know he will mako for tho peoplo."
"P. W. SHEA."
0
0
0
0
THE PRIZE
Sixty-five miles of railroad tapping
Mesaba ore deposits in Minnesota dis
covered by the Mcrritts. Value of road
and ore holdings in 1803, $20,000,000.
THE OFFER
A loan of $120,000 (and the PROMISE
of more) by John D. Rockefeller on
securities valued at from $0,000,000 to
$10,000,000 to build extension to Lake
Superior.
AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED
Lconidaw Mcrritt, he swears, was
urged by the Rev. V. T. Gates to trust
in John D. Rockefeller, that he had a
conference with John D. who opponed a
receivership for the road on tho ground
that it would have "a little tinge of
violating the law." On Merritt's re
fusal to throw his Minnesota friends
and realtlvcs overboard and join with
Rockefeller In gobbling tho great prop
erty, the $420,000 loan was called in
twenty-four hours, and $0,000,000 to
$10,000,000 worth of securities swal
lowed by Rockefeller, leaving Mcrritt
to "walk tlie railroad ties back to Du
luth." New York World.
0
0
0
0
tiJltZ' inv'
.twi2f2SiftJkufcu
l&fc