Baxter Springs news. [volume] (Baxter Springs, Kan.) 1882-1919, 1892-01-16
IMPORTANT DECISION.

cases where the answers might tend TO
criminate them in any way or subject
them to possible future prosecution. 1t
is held that the fifth amendment to the
constitution, giving persons the right
to refuse to answer questions which
might be against them in criminal
cases, must be construed in its broadcast
sense. Such is the effect of the decis-
ion of the United States supreme court
In the cele brated interstate commerce
case of Charles Counselman, appellant,
VS.. Frank Hitchcock, marshal OF the
United States for the northern district
of Illinois. The supreme court says
Judge Gresham's order was erroneous
and that Couuselman cannot be COM
PEELED to testify. 1t is said the effect
of the decision will seriously hamper
the interstate. commerce act. The
courts decision was unanimous.
The Couuselman case had its origin
in an investigation begun in 1890 by tho
grand jury of the United States district
court for northern Illinois into 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 s. Kansas City
railway companies Counselman, the
great grain broker, was asked whether
he had obtained from railroads coming
to Chicago from points outside the state
rate for grain transportation less
than the tariff rates. His reply to this
and similar questions as TO whether or
not he had received rebates, drawbacks
or commissions from specially named
railroads, was that he declined 10 an
swer on the ground that 1t might tend
to criminate him. The grand jury re-
ported the refusal to the district court,
and it found that Counselman's excuses
were insufficient and directed him 20
answer. He still refusing, the court
adjudged him in contempt, fined him
$500 and costs and directed the marshal
to take him into custody and hold him
until he should have answered the
questions asked and others OF similar
import.
After further proceedings the circuit
court, Judge Gresham delivering tho
opinion, discharged writ of habeas
corpus it had issued to Counselman
pending its decision, aud made an order
sustaining the district court From
Judge Gresham's order the appeal in
this court was prosecuted and Counsel
man meantime admitted to bail. Ooun-
sci 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 crini-
nate him in any case, also attacked the
right of the grand jury to proceed in
such Investigations.
The court, in its opinion, rendered by
Justice Blatchford, says, however, that
It does not find it necessary to consider
any other than the point raised under
the constitution as to the privileges OF
witnesses. 1t is broadly eontended.
says the opinion, that witness b not
entitled TO plead the privilege OF silence
except in q criminal case against him.
self, but such is not the language OF
the constitution. It's provision Is that
no person shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be q witness against
himself. This provision must have .
broad construction in favor Of the right
which Il was intended to secure. The
matter under investigation by Che grand
iurv was q criminal matter, and the
reason given by Counselman for his re-
fusal was that his answers might tend
to criminate him. His apprehension
was that the answers might show that
he had committed q crime against the
interstate commerce act, for which no
might be prosecuted. His answers,
therefore, would be testimony against
himself, aud he would be com
PEELED to give them in a criminal
case. 1t was impossible that the mean
ing OF the constitutional provision could
only be that a person should not be
compelled to be q witness in a criminal
prosecution against himself. The OBJ
iect was to insure that person should
not be compelled, when acting rs q wit
ness in an investigation, to give testi-
mony which might tend to show that
he himself had committed q crime.
The privilege is limited to criminal
matters, but 1t is as broad as the mis-
chief against which 1t seeks to guard.
The court then takes up the cOnten-
ton that the investigation before the
grand jury was not criminal case, but
solely to ascertain whether crime
had been committed, and 1t reaches
the conclusion that the questions asked
Counselman and his relation to the in
uuiry show that it was such case as
entitled him to invoke the protection
of the constitution
The court, therefore, rules that
Councilman was entitled to refuse to-
ans wer and directs that the Judgment
of the circuit court be revised and the
case remanded, with direction to dis
charge Counselman from custody.