New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-12-22
pRJVTLEGE OF TELFGRAHS.

The Supreme Court OF MISSOURI mas just
rendered decision adverse to the privilege
of secrecy so often claimed for kilograms,
which fully sustains, by judicial reasons and
authorities, the views which have been ex-
planned by THE TRIBUNE on the subject.
The case arose thus: 1t happened that COM
plant was laid before the Grand Jury IN st.
Louis which could not well be subStantiated
without an examination of certain telegraphc
dispatches These dispatches had been sent
through the Western Union Telegraph office
at st. Louis and there was reason to believe
that the originals, or copies, were still kept.
i'm the usual course of business in the office.
The Grand Jury summoned the manager to
produce them. He refused, and the Court
committed HIM for contempt. He then COM
planned to the Supreme Court.
That Court has now declared that it does
not consider the files of messages in q tele-
graph Office entitled to any privilege OF
secrecy when detecting crime or enforcing the
laws in the Courts is in question. There is no
analogy between the records in telegraph
Office and those in the archives OF Govern
ment, nor any between the files OF original
messages which the office keeps and sealed
letters passing to and fro in the mails, which
can Justify extending to telegraph Office the
privilege which is granted to Government
records and mail bags The managers lawyers
argued that such an immense amount of bust
ness is now transacted by telegraph that
it has become neces sary, for public con-
yenlence that the Courts should allow
it to be done in secrecy; but the
Supreme Court said that this might be a very
good reason why the Legislature should pass
laws to this effect. but that at present there
is no such law and the Courts cannot make
one. The lawyers produced a rule of the
company forbddIng its employees to reveal
messages. But the Court said that the COM
pany had no power to make Il rule which
could excuse the manager from Obeying the
process of the Court. The lawyers cited Il
statute of MissOuri-such q one as exists in
many of the States-which imposes penalty
on any telegraph agent for disclosing the con-
tents of a private dispatch to any person
other than the one TO whom it is addressed !;
but the COurJ said that such statutes do not
mean that an agent may refuse to answer
questions in n court of justice they are in
tended only for preventing careless or mali
cOus disclosures of the business of the Office.
Upon another point, however, the manager
was victorious. The subpoena served upon him
did not specify particular kilograms, but called
for ali messages on file, between certain per-
sons named also, for all messages which had
been sent by certain persons to any one, dur
ing period of about fifteen months. The
Court said that this was not sufficiently def
mite. 1t was an unreasonable search now the
Constitution forbids unreasonable searches
The Grand Jury had power TO insist on the
production of kilograms involved directly, III
the particular complaint they were investigat-
ing. But to allow them to call for all the
messages which anyone they might choose to
name had sent or received during a years
time might bring into the Courts, and so reveal
to the public, thousand private affairs with
which the investigation before them had moth
ing whatever to do. Upon this branch of the
case. therefore, the manager was set at liberty.
The upshot is, that Grand Jury may compel
the production of kilograms; but must specify
the particular messages needed.