New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-12-12
WITNESSES IN CONTEMPT.
THE CASES OF coUysELMAy AND PEAsLEY
JUDGE GRESHAM DECIDES THAT BOTH ME'
WERE RIGHTLY PUNISHED FOR REFUSING

JUDGE GRESHAM DECIDES THAI BOlh M~
WERE RIGHTLY PUNISHED FOR REFUSING
TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY.
Chicago Dee. 1l.-Judce Gresham this morning DO
cided the petitions for habeas corpus presented on
behalf of Charles Counseman. the Boad of Trade man.
and James c. Pea,lcy, treasurer Of the Chicago Bur
ngton and Quincy Railroad Company. and held IN
both that the orders of the District Court al
judging both in contempt, and that they should
be fined afd imprisoned, authorized. Mr. Counsel
ard Mr. Peaslcy were rcmanded to the custody Oh
the marshal.
The Court delivered extended opinions in both cases.
Counselmans counsel took refug for their client under
the Vth Amendment Of the Constitution of the United
states which provides that witness cannot be COM
PEELED to incrimina'e himself This the Court brushes
aside by quoting section $50 of the Revised statutes
of the United states, which provide, tha, evidence
ELECTED in a judicial proceeding shall not be used
against witness In any subsequent criminal proceed
ing against him. COunselman he said, could not plead
the Constitutional amendment for the further reason
that he trial. but merely called as
witnes, against others Even had he been on trial him
self he could be permitted 20 plead the benefits OF
the Constitutional provision, for the that II was
lnapplcablc he being protected against the conso-
quences Of his evidence by the ;tarute
The reasoning in the Peasey case was entirely
similar.
1t is stated that tho defendants will appeal to
the supreme Court Of the United states where test Of
the Interstate Commerce law viii be made
Judge Gresham. in his ruling, really passed upon
the validity Of the Interstate law itself 1t is looked
upon by most eminent lawyers as firmly establishing
\, laN, by providing avenue by which % reach
viOlat6rs. That the decision one In when the
whole country Interested j. manifest in the opening
Of court By The presence Of great lawyers and railroad
men, In dec dinS the Counselman case Judge Gresham
said
Xr,h b
PEELED % disclose before court or grand Jury "hcn
might subject criminal prosecution or his property
to forfeiture. IT, however, there be a statute "hich
declares that the testimony OF witness IN case or
proceeding shall never be repeated against him or his
prop,rty in any other proceeding there Is ne
necessity for claiming tho privilege Of the amendment IL
the protection Section $50 Is coextcnNl'e win tst OK
the constitution witness entitled privilege under
the latter. In Counsenan SAYS: III should
answer the questions il appear that have violated
the interstate Commerce law and my admissions might 10
offered against hereafter" The sufficient answer 70
that position "should he be hereafter prosecuted fo
the offence would permit his admissions
| be proven against him"
The privilege be claimed when 10 appears tha
the witness been acquitted convicted Of The ohencd
| about which he IS s,Aed 70 testify that he has b'n
hardened for t that It has been barred by lapse of
time and should Coun-eman the questions which
be refused his disclosures could never be used
against property in subsequent proceeding.
u il, further urged in behalf that should
he testify before jury obedience u the order
NJ tho District Court he might disclose icts and clrcum-
stances which, though inHa,erial in themselves, Wouli
oun ND source, information the Government whereby
10 might obtain evidence seizure his conviction, and that
therefore the Immunity secured by section 500 j. not equal
10 tl protection the Nth Amendment That anncmeht
la adopted shield men from the consequences 81
thor crimes, bu that thy might not be- obliged TO furnish
d.nce Of their guilt and when the disclosures of
witness, however guilty they may sho" him to De- c'I
never b. repeated any subsequent proceeding aeal'
him or his property, he i fully protected aS he Con
,tltutlon intended he should be.
In the Peasley case the Court stated, Peasley 10
treasurer OF the Chicago, Burlington and quincy kaii-
road Company refused testify before the Grand Jury
concerning the giving Of shippers, and had
refused To prduce the books and papers of the COM
| paUy when demanded By the Grand Jury. basing bis
refusal on the same amendments u the Constitution as
th,, put forward in the Counselman case. The Court
| continued
P,ascy's testimony shows that h not guilty u
tra offence for The Grand Jury was n'e't atne ana
therefore the production Of the papers demanicd would no
crna, him. and his refusal produce the papers was
a.thorl led IT, however show which he made be-
fore the Grand Jury different. and IL appeared
that the production Of the .ap might cminat, him then
for t. reason, I'm the he could not claim
immunity under the lNth and Yth Amendments. II a
wtno,, cannot claim tn privilege for ue benefit Of him
self Doe cannot claim Tor the benefit OF another ana
Paisley, refusal to produce checks aud vouchers be-
cau,. their production Wold tend TO c-mIhat' IN CONS
many ~ which he d., an officer based upon rothng in
/ ,n Irt.-..,t. commerce Law or the Consultation.
Corora,on. acting A. Carrier, between states
not liable crimn,ly FOR violation, II the Interstate
{, norc. Act nor ar they exposed To it, p-ndte' and
r., '.itures For some reason. >sfa t'ry To Congress.
only tha officers such corporations and shippers may be
punished foy violating the statute.