St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-12-12
The LAW SUSTAINED.
Important Ruling by Judge
Gresham Anent Interstate
Commerce.
Two Recalcitrant Witnesses
in a Railway Case Bound
Over.
A Decision Involving the Life
Of Judge Cooley's Com
mission.
The Pacific Short Line An
noyed by a Number OF
Liens.


today handed down his lOng-looked for
decision i'll the Counselman and Peas
ley ha5eas corpus interstate commerce
gases, and in ms ruling really passed
npon the validity of the law itself. He
denied the writ of habeaS corpus in
both cases, and remanded both petition
arS to the custody of the marshal, where
they were before their petitions were
filed. They are now conclusiyely i'll the
hands of the marshal, in reality under
pond to apper before the supreme court
Or the United States. to which tribunal
their attorneys will appeal for final adj
Indication of the matter. In his de-
aision Judge Gresham finds that Coun-
selman can be made to testify because
he is fully protected against punish
ment on his own evidence in that the
fifth amendment TO the constitution
prevents any evidence he may give
from ever being used to criminate
him. In
The Peasiey Case
The petitioner is placed in the same at
titude as Counselman because the inter
state commerce law expressly provides
hat railroad corporations are not in
tiictable, and only individual offenders
can be considered The fact that
Miller, who was actually being inveSti-
gated by the grand jury, was an en-
ploye with PeaSIey of the Burlington
foad, does not involve Peasley in any
liability on account of his testimony.
They can only be viewed under the law
as two distinct individuals, each punish
able for his own offense. The force of
Judge GreSham'S ruling is very great.
1t is looked upon by most eminent law
yers as firmly establishing the inter
state commerce law by providing an
avenue by which to reach Viola
tors. That the decision was one
In which the whole country
is interested was manifest at
the opening of court by the presence of
great lawyers aud railroad men. In de-
Gliding the Counselman case Judge
Gresham reviewed the antecedeut facts
Of Counselman's refusal to answer
questions prOpounded to him by the
federal grand jury. tending to show that
be, as receiver of gram, had been
given special rates by certain railroads
Ia violation of the Interstate commerce
law, on the ground that to DO so would
tend to
Incriminate Himself;
his subsequent arraignment before
Judge Bl0dgett, who fined him for con-
tempt of court and ordered him COM
mitted until the fine should be paid, to-
gether with his application for relt asa
from custody under writ of habeas
corpus. Judge Gresham then quoted
the fourth and fifth amendments to the
constitution of the United States, the
former providing the security of the
citizen against unreasonable searches
and seizures of his person, papers and
effects, and the latter providing that no
person shall be compelled, in any GRIM
inal case, to be witness against him
self. The court also quoted the pro-
vision of the interstate commerce law
which makes the offense charged in this
case criminal one, and section $50 of
the revised statutes of the United
States, which eXemptS persons from
prosecution on the strength of evidence
wrested from them under judicial pro-
tedure. The court then said:
Under the fifth amendment person can
not be compelled to disclose facts before a
court or grand jury which might subject him
TO CRIMINAL prosecution or his property to
forfeiture. If, however there be statute
which declares that the testimony of wit
ness In case or proceeding shall never be
against him or his property in any
other case or proceeding. there is no neces-
slty for claiming the privilege of the amend
ment. If the protection of section $50 is CO.
a " hat ~ N1aor
witness is entitled 10 no privilege under the
latter. In effect. Counselman says: "lf II
should answer the questions it would ap-
pear that l have violated the inter
state commerce law, and my admissions
might be offered against ME hereafter"
The sufficient answer to that position is:
Should he he hereafter prosecuted for the
Dtfense, section SEQ would not permit his
admissions TO be proven against him." The
privilege cannot be claimed when it appears
that the witness has been acquitted or con-
victed of the offense about which he is asked
TO testify. that he has been pardoned for it.
Or thatlt has been debarred by lapse of time;
AID, should Counselman answer the ques-
hons which he refused to answer, his dis
closures could never be used against him or
his property in any subsequent proceeding.
The petition is dismissed. and the petitioner
VIII remain in the custody of the marshal
In the Peasley case, the court stated,
PeaSley, as treasurer of the Chicago,
Burlington IL Quincy Railroad company,
refused to testify before the grand iury
concerning the giving of rebates to
shippers. and had refused to produce
HE books and papers of the company
when demanded by the grand iury.
basing his refusal on the same AMEND,
mentS to the constitution as those put
forward in the CounSelman case. The
court continued:
Peasley's testimony shows that he was not
guilty of the oifense which the grand Jury
vas investigating, and therefore the prodnc-
non OF the papers demanded would not Grim
mate him, and his refusal to produce the
papers was Unauthorized. If, however. the
showing which he made before the grand
Jury had been different and it had appeared
that the production of the papers might
erlminate him, then for the reasons given i'm
The Counse. man case, he could not claim i'm
munlty under the fourth and fifth amend
men;s. 1T witness cannot claim the priv
lege for the benefit of himself he cam
not claim 1t for the benefit of another.
and Peasleys refusal to produce the
checks and vouchers because their rrodnc-
ton would tend to criminate the company of
which he is an officer is based upon nothing
in the interstate commerce law or
the constitution. Corporations acting as
common carriers between states are not
liable crlminally for violations Of the inter
STATE commerce act. nor are they exposed to
Its penalties and forfeitures. For some
reason, satisfactory to congress, only the
officers of such corporations and shippers
may be punished for violating the statute.
1t follows that the order of the district court
adjudging Peasley in contempt of its author
ity and that he should be fined and impris-
oned was authorized, and he will remain in
the custody of the marshal.
The case will be taken ON appeal to
the United States supreme court. 1t
was in this investigation by the federal
grand jury that indictments were re-
Gently returned against James T. Long.
manager of the freight department of
the illinois Steel company; John M.
Egan.. president and general manager
the Chicago. st. Paul & Kansas City
railroad; Thomas Miller, general freight
agent OF the Chicago, Burlington d
quincy railroad: and Manager Johnson.
OF the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific