New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-05-20
THE COURTS.
A TEST CASE IN REVENUE LAW

Tn the limited States District Court, on Sept.
Is 1873 the Government began suit against George
Hughes Co. TO 100000 in gold, the value Of
certain impOrtatons Of linen alleged to have been en-
tered at the CustomhOuse fraudulent invoices The
Government claimed that, by OF the alleged
frauds entire value of the impOrtatons had been
forfeited under the act OF March g. 1868 On sept 70
1873 books and papers OF Hughes ca were seized
on warrant issued by Judge Batchford, under Sec
OF the of March ., 1867, and on Dec 26 1873
the books and papers 80 seized were returned under
stipulation that the defendant would produce them AT
the trial. and that copies OF them might be used WITH Ine
force and effect Of the originals.
On Feb is, 1875, the trial begun. when Assistant
United states Discretionary smons, who conducted
the for the Government offered certain parts OF
books papers in evidence Sherburne b. Eaton
the defendants objected the ground that
Section SEQ the Revised Statutes OF the United
States books and papers which had been seized under
such q the referred to were not compe-
evidence against the defendants The Court sus
tanned the objection and plaintiffs counsel excepted
Mr.. Simons then offered in evidence copies OF the
books aud papers the stipulation produce
them These objected to the same ground the
objection sustained and an exception taken Mr. ST.
mons moved, under the act of June %, 1874 Os
Stat at 1877 that the defendants be directed to pro-
certain books and papers The particular facts
which the Government expected TO prove by them
being stated In the motion, Judge Blatehford
granted the motion pro tOrrno, and the notice was
served the de1endante IN open court 4Hcy
expressed their Willingness produce the books and
papers called for saying that they did not wish to take
advantage of any legal techncates but 10 stand on the
merits OF their case. Mr. Eaton. however, would not
allow them do remarkng that so long as he acted
counsel they should avail themselves of all their
legal rights This refusal by Mr. Eaton was followed oy
motion behalf of the plaintiff that the allegations in
the motion production of the books and papers
be taken As confessed accordance with the provisions
of the of June d. 1874 To this Mr. Eaton objected
on the following grounds, among others:
The alleged ofIenses were committed and the suit was
begun prior the enactment Of the act OF June - -
and thai act applied to me sun T No
prohibiting the passage OF or posi- Jao'o hws; JUG
Blatchford denied the motion, and an exception was
taken At this point Mr. smous served the deIendants
with duecs tocan, requiring them 10 produce
counsel they REUSED to do for the that
such production woud tend 10 subject the nm 10 inc en-
forcencnt the penalties and foTfetrcs set to IN
assumed by the firm and the ruling was excepted
To- Mt sim6ns here offered to ca witness to prove he
of the books aud papers 1t apIeaIfd ha' te
proposed was clerk in the Casionh0se' ana
that he had the originals while they were III tAe
custody Of the Court NJ E&ian o',e',Tu 10 SG NM
secondary II incompetent for tie SAN. reason mat
the PRIMARY G, idence had d, declared incompetent
This objection Was also sustalheu si4 pH on
the Court, the jury found Verlci if 'Ae eienli o
the ground that the plaintiff had i1-eA 70 maze Ou.
The issues Involved in this case were considered Of snch
vital importance that contrary 10 IL usual custom IN
Ratcltori 20 the Circnit Court II the United States
Mr. Justice limit II The Supreme Court of the United
Sstes ~ soiint. when Mr. simons claimed that, for the
following among other reasons, the rnlngS o! re Io
below should be reversed new lIl. yIde; INV Ae
books and papers in question be- admitted a. eEuoCe and
The Court below erred IN e%ciGdms .he nGOsS enT T
papers the objection that they were hlGl t F
airy 25 1865, because they were ORIGINALLY AIKEN rom
ac ae Of March SR = sS7 L was admitted By dat Court
that but for ITS opinion OF ne o9eIa9n Gd tn6 6 an ~
.e1via aY s,1 by o,reet adudaon in the First
lyela affirmed
here that under the act authorizing judicial FS
like That here books and papers seized }hgre
under were competent evidence and tla the Gal De
that party could not he conPeea 70 aecsG n
self furnish evidence against laist ~ ~ haI no
in suit to recover penalty or t vTtbe
aplea IN to r ,nfh f f5at nv section Of the
of Feb -. 1865, II was deDfreu IIohl o
~ r reasoninc If the JUDGE in his opinion.
j.. M sllst cp that the present SAT- beng 10 eoIce
forfeiture against cerun paiiirs oooA' an i@t r
obiained from rarty 10y Of indieal proceedns
within the meaning Of the act OF oS al viii Tn
therefore, he used against such parry III III SUI AZ
other words COurj finding, Al rs J.'5, 49,, all ~
mart of the Language OF the satutt IN qs JOE caap VI
Including facts in the present case efS 'n 'nc3
must therefore, be so included ~, .. H.. s.,
xvarr,nt nr the statute is judicial proceeding IN so
far AZ it 4 conducted before ana uldeI "a ~
Int are in some sense parties 10 that proceeding but we
contend thar II doe mol lS0" "o 3di ad me defend
ants are parties that il il Judicial ana heF are par
ever general may be tie form q evpr sion in H. a
thing NAV be- within the letter OF the N bl A'' VIII
IT. rne meaning which ha- to De- gathered IRON cdItl
con sideration Of such circumstances a. the e7,d"
lished rules oi statutory cous'i roadipg ar
The part OF the act relied on by ne psiiG' to b III
proceedn; a. mat by warrant M Ter ne aet OF 49,
and such rares as involved therein are Ot ~
NV the act OF sos. The Court below erred IN uo{lue
t6e plaintiff that the allegations 81 lie
non should he taken confessed Ing act IN
SSar,reT nd as .uch not liable the objection which
The Court sustained. On the decnudHs tHoVly VI ~ ~
warrant act ii the rules OF evidence were canged OS
the act of 1872 the change benehcal to the defend
ants and OF which they could not c0mln, ,d aae
a. TO the OF the books ana papers Oh hughes
In his reply to Mr. smons. Mr.. Eaton, after giving
brief history all The laws TelaYt 70 nt u ~ -
,orterS books papers said among oIher Things ne
The AZ of Feb 25 1868. which renacted in section
$50 of the Revised statutes OF the United states sa!s
sNo pleading % any party, nor any usroFeIy oi f
denoe obtained from party or wines w mean sba
judicial proceeding IN THIS or any 4OIIsn s, hi
10 gwen in evidence or IN any manner used asln 1
III ~ -, ,nS criminal proceeding. for the enforce
uent of ans penalty forfeiture; froNdeu tndt tnls
prosecution and punishment for peiuIE COMMITTED III
discovering testfying aforesaid Ihat ac applies
~ tins st because IL h for the enforcement, vi pen
sIt,es against the defendants the books were offered
in evidence against them and they were obtained Y
properly excluded evidence by the Court below inat
Court right in denying The motion 10 eompe, ne
ssbpena daces teeun, because defendants cannot DE
forced 10 testify against themselves in suits TO enforce
PENALTIES ana forfeitules That Is elementary prlnci-
pie OF common law and equity jurisprudence mat
and itis therefore binding United states this
district IL il not altered by the statutes winch remove
same rulcs when stand any other wit
nesses may decline answer for the same reasons
yandeTvOOrt, 9th New York. lob.
The obtaining Of books and papers under subpoena
necs ees' - al t"1i the sng,sSa ~ The stafuTe II
Is clearly it spirit IL the District Attorney can
then Immediately demand them again under subpoena
does team the act o. lSoo u rendered wnoly hugaiOr