St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-01-12
The Supreme Court Sustains
His Refusal to Answer
Questions.
Very Broad Interpretation
Given to the Constitu-
tional Protection.
Friends of the Interstate Law
Taken Aback by the De-
ciSion.
On the Plea of Self-Inerimina-
ton, Witnesses Can Re-
fuse to Talk.

WASHINGTON, Jan. lit has now
become settled law that witnesses
cannot tie compelled to testify in any
criminal cases where the answers might
lend 10 crlminate Them in any way, or
subject them to possible future prose-
cutIon. 1t is held that the fifth amend
ment 10 the constitution, giving persons
the right TO refuse to answer questions
winch might be used against them in
criminal cases, must be construed in its
oroadest sense. Such is the effect of
the decision of the United States SUI
preme court today in the celebrated in
teIState commerce case of Charles Cour-
selihan, appellant, VS.. Frank Hitchcock.
marshal OF the United States district
court for the Northern district of llli-
noiS.
IhlS case is one Of great interest
10 railroads and has attracted wide
spread attention. Counselman was
ASKED whether he had ever obtained
from any railroad rate On gram ship
ments lower than the open rate to all
Shippers. He refused to answer on
ana CANNED the protection of the consti-
tutlonal guarantee conferred bv the
MIN amendment. Judge Gresham de-
cldeo against him and held him in con-
tempt OF court for refusing to answer
me quesllohs. and it is on appeal from
dfeSham'S order that the case decided
py the supreme court today came up.
Inc courts ruling is that Judge
GreSnams order was erroneous and
thdt CounSeJman cannot be compelled
TO testify. it has been said that the eff
rect OF decision by the courts that wit
neSSeS cannot be compelled to testify
VIII seriously hamper the interstate
commerce commission in the admins
tration OF the interstate commerce act.
ne courts decision was unanimous.
Inc COunselman case had its origin in
an investigation begun in 1890 by the
grand jury of the United States district
court for Northern Illinois, in certain
alleged violations of the interstate COM
merce act by the officers and agents of
the Rock Island, the Burlington and
the Chicago, ST. Paul IL Kansas City
Hallway companies.
Counsel for the witness (appellant).
besides urging the plea that the witness
was protected by the fifth amendment
TO the constitution from answering
any questions which might tend
to criminate him in any case,
also attacked the right of the
the grand jury to proceed in such in
vestlgatlons. The court, in its opinion,
rendered by Justice Blatchford, says,
however. that it does not find it neces-
Sary to consider any other than the
point raised under the constitution Us
TO The privileges of witnesses 1t is
broadly contended, says the opinion,
mat witness is not allowed to plead
the privilege OF silence. except in a
criminal case, against himself, but such
is not the language of tie constitution.
It's provision is that no person shall be
compelled Ill any criminal case to be
witness against himself.
ms provision must have a broad
construction i'll favor of the right which
1t was Intended to secure. The matter
under investigation by the grand jury
was criminal matter, and the reason
given by Counselman for his refusal
was that his answers might tend to
criminate him. His apprehension was
that the answers might show that he
had committed crime against the inter-
state commerce act, for which he might
be prosecuted. His answers, therefore.
would be testimony against himself, and
he would be compelled to give them i'm
a criminal case.
1t was impossible that the meaning of
the constitutional provision can Only be
that person shall not be compelled to
be witness i'll q criminal prosecution
against himself. The object was to in
sure that person should not be COM
PEELED. while acting as witness in any
investigations TO give testimony tending
to show that he himself had committed
jXri1 i,
criminal matters, but it is as broad as
the mischief against which it seeks to
guard.
The court then takes up the conten-
ton that the investigation before the
grand jury was not a criminal case. but
solely to ascertain whether crime had
been committed, and reaches the con-
clusiOn that the questions asked Coun-
selman, and his relation to the inquiry.
show that it was such case as entitled
him to invoke the protection of the
constitution.
The court then considers the allega-
ton that section $50 of the revised
statutes, which says that no evidence
obtained from witness by means of a
Judicial proceeding shall be in any
manner used against him in any Grim
inal proceeding, or for the enforcement
of any penalty or forfeiture, removes
the protection of the constitutional
privilege OF Counselman.
The court says this provision, of
course, protected COunselman against
the use of his testimony against him
self or his property, but that it could
and would not prevent the use of his
testimony to search out other testimony
to be used against him: 1t could not
prevent the obtaining and the use of
evidence which should be attributable
directly to the testimony he might have
under cOmpulSion. Section 500 is not
eoeXtensiye with the constitutional
provision. and legislation cannot de-
tract from the privilege given by the
constitution. Act of congress cannot
amend the constitution.
The court therefore rules that Conn
selman was entitled to refuse to answer
and directs that the judgment of the
circuit court be reversed and the case