Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/404

 372

The Green Bag

Congress establishes a forest reserve

criminate

for what it decides to be national and public purposes. In the same way and in the exercise of the same trust it may disestablish a reserve, and devote the property to some other national and pub

rendered the constitutional provision inapplicable, by destroying the in criminating effect of the evidence given,

lic purpose.

These are rights incident

to proprietorship, to say nothing of the power of the United States as a sovereign over the property belonging to it.

Even

a private owner would be entitled to

them;

the

immunity Act

and by providing absolute immunity from prosecution for any crime already

committed concerning the matters. trans actions and things testiﬁed about; the immunity furnished related to present and not future crimes; that immunity purged the evidence given of all unlaw ful characteristics, and assured the

protection against wilful trespasses, and statutes providing that damage done by animals cannot be recovered, unless

defendants that up to the time they

the land had been inclosed with a fence

wrongful thing; the immunity Act did

of the size and material required, do not give permission to the owner of cattle to use his neighbor's land as a

transactions,

pasture. They are intended to condone trespasses by straying cattle; they have

no application to cases where they are

testified they had done no wicked or not, and could not alter or destroy the

matters

and things eon

ceming which the information was furnished. They must exist still as facts, harmless and pure, to be sure, but still tangible facts; and those facts,

driven upon unfenced land in order that

proper foundation having been laid,

they may feed there. Lazarus v. Phelps, 152 U. S. 81, 38 L. ed. 363, 14 Sup. Ct.

and when legally competent and rele vant, may be shown at any time, in any action, civil or criminal.

Rep. 477; Monroe v. Cannon, 24 Mont.

324, 81 Am. St. Rep. 439, 61 Pac. 863; St. Louis Cattle Co. v. Vaught, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 388, 20 S. W. 855; Union P. R. Co. v. Rollins, 5 Kan. 176." See Administrative Powers.

Immunity.

Granted by Constitution

only with Regard to Incriminating Em'dence——~Federal Immunity Act Con slrued -— Sherman Anti-Trust Law.

U. S. Judge Carpenter of the United States District Court, in ruling upon a motion to quash the indictments under the Sherman Act in the "beef trust” cases,

U. S. v. Swift et al., at Chicago, March 22, rendered an extended opinion con

sidering constitutional questions.

He

said in part: —

"The Constitution guaranteed to the defendants the right of silence only with respect to evidence which might in

“If I am right in my conclusion as to the effect of the Fifth Amendment and the Immunity Statutes, upon the

evidence given by the defendants to the Commissioner of Corporations in 1904, then the only question remaining is whether the court ought to quash an

indictment because incompetent evi dence was presented to the grand jury." The Court answered this last question in the negative. The Court thus reached the result that the "immunity bath" granted the

defendants by Judge Humphrey's de cision in 1906 would not bar the prose cution begun six months previously. The defendants ﬁled demurrers which

were overruled by Judge Carpenter May 12. In his ruling Judge Carpenter upheld the constitutionality of the Sherman Act, and held that it deﬁned with sufficient accuracy the criminal