Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-12-12
GRESHAM DECISION
The Habeas Corpus Writs in the Cases
of COunselman and Peasley
Are Refused.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT VALID
They Refused to Give Testimony Before
the Grand Jury That Might In
criminate Themselves.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACTVALID
CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSE EXPLAINED.
What the Amendment Concerning cOnPulsicn Of In
criminsting Evidence Means

CHICAGO Dec. 11.-Judge Gresham to-
Gav handed down his Iong-looked-for de-
cision in the Counselman and Peasley ha-
beas corpus interstate commerce case, and
in his ruling really passed upon the valid
itv of the law ITSELF He denied the writ of
habeas corpus in both cases, and remanded
both petitioners to the custody of the Mar
shal.
In his decision Judge Gresham finds that
Counselman can be made to testify before
the grand Jury, because he is fully protected
against punishment in his own evidence, in
that the fifth amendment to the Constitution
nrevents anv evidence he may give rom
ever being used to criminate him. In the
Peasiey case the petitioner is placed In the
same attitude as CounSelman, because the
Interstate commerce law expressly pro-
vides that railroad corporations are
not indictable. and only individual
offenders can be considered. The fact that
Miller, who was actually being investigated
by the grand jury, was an employe with
Peaslev, of the Burlington road, does not in
volve Peasley in anv liability on account of
his testimony. They can only be viewed
under the law as two distinct individuals,
each punishable for his own offense.
A Very Important Decision.
The force of Judge Gresham's ruling is
very great 1t is looked upon by most emf
uent LAWYERS as firmly establishing the
Interstate commerce law by providing an
avenue bv which to reach Violators The
Court said:
Under the fifth amendment, person cannot
be compelled to disclose facts before 4 court or
grand Jury which might subject him to a
criminal prosecution or his property to seizure.
However, there being statute which declares
that the testimony of a witness in proceeding
shall never be repeated against him or his
property in any other case or proceeding, there
is no necessity for claiming the privilege OF the
amendment.
In effect Counselman SAYS: IF should an
Swer the questions, 1t would appear that have
violated the Interstate commerce law, and
my admissions might be offered against me
hereafter" The sufficient answer to that posi-
tion is: Should he be hereafter prosecuted for
the offense. section 500 would not permit his
admissions TO be proved against him:
1t is further urged in behalf of CounselmaD
that should he testify before the grand jury
in obedience to the order of the District Court
he might disclose facts and circumstances
which, although immaterial in themselves,
would open I'D sources OF information TO the
Government whereby ii might obtain evidence
not otherwise obtainRble to secure his con-
viCtion. aad that therefore the immunity Sc
cured by section $50 is not equal to the pro-
lection OF the fifth amendment. That amend
menJ was adopted, not to shield men from the
consequences of their crimes, but that they
might not be obliged to furnish evidence of
their own guilt; and when the disclosures of a
witness, however guilty they may show him to
be- can never be repeated in any subsequent
proceeding against him his property, he is
fully protected as the Constitution intended
he should be.
The Constitutional Question.
In the Peasely case, the Court stated that
Peasley, as treasurer of the Chicago, Bur-
lington and Quincy Railroad Company, re-
fused to testify before the grand jury con-
cerning the giving of rebates to shippers
and had refused TO produce the books and
papers OF the company when demanded BY
the grand jury, basing his refusal on the
same amendments 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 offense which the grand jurv was
investigating. and therefore, the production OF
the papers demanded would not criminate him.
and his refusal TO produce the papers was un
authorized. If, however. the showing which
he made before the grand jury had been
different, and IL had appeared thar the produc
ton of the papers might criminate him, then
for the reasons given in the Counselman case
he could not claim immunity under the fourth
and fifth amendments. If a witness cannot
claim the privilege for the benefit of himself
he cannot claim 1t for the benefit of another
and Peasley'S refusal to produce the check.
and vouchers because their production would
Q tend to criminate the company of which he il
Z an officer, is based upon nothing in the inter
State commerce law. or the Constitution.
Corporations acting as common carriers be
tween States are not liable criminaly for vic
lations of the Interstate commerce act, no
are they exposed to its penalties and forfeit
ures. For some reason, satisfactory to Con
gress only the officers of such corporation
and shippers may be punished for violatin,
the statute. 1t follows that the order of tn
District Court adjudgiug Peasley in contemp
OF its authority, and that he should be fine,
and imprisoned, was authorized, ,.and he will re
main in the custody of the Marshal.
The cases will be taken on appeal to tn
United States Supreme Court.