Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1892-01-12
ROCK ISLAND. I'll ESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1882
THROTTLEDB BY LAW
The In ferstate Commerce Act
Made lmpotent.
DECISION By THE SUPREME COURT.

Which Knocks the Pegs from Under the
Suit Against CounseIman and Others
The Constitution on SelfIncriminatine
Testim Gresham Ovcrruled
A DepredatinS Steer Causes Trouble
Between Indians and Whites-Confcr.
ences at the White House-Oficiai New
Notes.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 12.-The supreme
court yesterday decided a case which is oi
great importance all over the country. It
was the interstate commerce case Of
Chalcs Counselman. appellant, ". Frank
Hitchcock, marshal Of the district court
of the northern district Of Illinois The
reason ii is important is that in its dcci>.
ioa the court decided the question Of max
ing man witness against himself. and
took the broadest grounds TO The effect
that man cannot he forced to testify in
thai way The decision makes it settled law
that witnesses cannot be compelled 10 ties.
tify in any criminal cases whore the an
swers might tend to criminate them in any
way or subject them to possible future
prosecution.
History of the Case.
The case was originally tried before
Judge Gresham at Chicago. Counsehuau
and his clerks, as well as a number ot
prominent railway officials, were indicted
by the federal grand jury of that district
for alleged violations of the interstate
commerce act The specific allegation
was that CoUusclman 4, Co. had secured
..g. n fa''
they We're enabled to ship grain to the sea
board from Chicago Tor from - TO :.
cents bushel cheaper than any Of then
competitors and were. hy reason of this
advantage, acquiring monopoly of the
business. 1t was impossible to prove the
charges without the books Of the accused
parties, and an order Of court was ISSUED 10
secure them.
Refused to Answer Questions.
Counselman was asked whether he had
ever obtained from any railroad a rate on
grain shipments lower than the open rate
to all shippers. He refused to answer. on
the ground that it might cTiminate him
and claimed the protection Of the cunstitu-
tional guarantee conferred 10y the Fifth
| amendment. Judge Gresham decided
against him. and held him in contempt Of
and 1t is on appeal from Judge Gresham's
| order that the case decided by the supreme
! court came up.
Passed the ,Ju-i~,Iiction Question
One of the claims set mp by the aprll-
ant was that the district court was not
| authorized TO try the case a. presented.
1he supreme court remarks as to this that
1t zSiil net consider theplea. because tits
otthe opinion that upon anot her grornd
the Judgment oi the court below must he
| reversed 1t Is broadly contended on the
| part OF the appellee that a witness is Not
| entitled 10 plead the privilege Of silence.
except in criminal case against himself
but such is not the language of the CON
stitution It's provision is that no person
shall be compelled to testify in any crimi-
| nal case against himself. This provision
must have "a broad construction in favor
| of the right which it was intended to Sc
cure The matter under Investigation bv
the grand jury in this case was a criminal
matter, to inquire whether there had been
n criminal violation Cf the interstate com
unerCe act.
An impossible Meaning.
If Counselman had been guilty Of the
| matter inquired of OF the questions which
he refused to answer he himself was liable
| to CRIMINAL prosecution under that act
| CGcnsclman' answers therefore. would
| be testimony against himself. and he
would be compelled 70 give them in Grim
| iual case. Ii Is impossible that the mean
| ing of the constitutional provisions can
only be that a person shall not be com
! PEELED 10 be witness against himself in a
| criminal case against himself There was
no eyI! Of that kind which historically or
on principle was TO be guarded against
| The object was to insure that a person
| should not be compelled, when acting a. a
witness in any investigation to give testi-
mony which might show that he himself
| had committed crime.