Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1892-01-21
IMPORTANT DECISION.

IMPORTANT DECISION.
Judge Gresham In the Noted Counselman
Case.
! WASHINGTON, Jan. 13.-It has now
become settled that witnesses cannot
| be compelled to testify in any criminal
cases where the answers might tend to
/ crimiDate them in any way or subject
! them to possible future prosecution It
! 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 broadest
sense. Such is the effect of the decis-
ion of the United States supreme court
| in the celebrated interstate commerce
case of Charles CounseIman. appellant,
VS.. Frank Hitchcock, marshal of the
United States for the northern district
| of Illinois The supreme court saws
Judge Gresham's order was erroneous
and that Counselman cannot be COM
PEELED tn testify. 1t is said the effect
of the decision will seriously hamper
the interstate commerce act. The
courts decision was unanimous.
The Counselman case had its origin
| in an investigation begun in 1890 by the
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 & 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
| 70 fron
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 to an
swer on the ground that it might tend
to eliminate him The grand jury re-
ported the refusal to the district court,
and it found that Counselman's excuses
| were insufficient and directed him to
answer. He still refusing, the court
adjudged him in contempt, fined him
$500 and costs and directed the marshal
to take him into Gu IT ;dy 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 the
opinion, discharged writ of habeas
corpus it had issued to Counselmau
pending its decision. aud made an order
sustaining the district court. From
Judge Gresham's order the appeal in
this court was prosecuted AMI Counsel
man meantime admitted to bail. Coun-
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 crimi-
nate him in any case, also attacked the
right CT 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 consi Ter
any other than the point raised under
the constitution as to the privileges of
witnesses. 1t is broadly commended
says the opinion, that witness is not
entitled to plead the privilege OF silence
: except in a criminal case against him
self, but such is not the language OF
the constitution. Its provision is that
no person shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness agains
himself. This provision must have
broad construction in favor of the right
which it was intended to secure. The
, matter unier investigation by the grani
Jury was a criminal matter, and thu
reason given by C,unselman for his re
fusal was that his answers might tend
to criminate him. His apprehension
; was that the answers might show tina
he had committed a crime against the
interstate commerce act, for which h
, might be prosecuted. His answers
, therefore, would be testimony agains,
himself, and he would be com.
; PEELED to give them in crimina
: case. twas imposs ible that the mean
ing of the constitu tional pr vision could
only be that a person should not bt
!, compelled to be a witness in a Grimm a
D prosecution against himself. The Oh
. iect was to insure that a person should
not be compelled, when acting as wit
ness in an investigation, to give testi
mony which might tend to show that
he himself had committed a crime
l The privilege is limited to Grimm a
matters, but it is as broad as the mis-
chief against which it seeks to guard
The court then takes up the conten
ton that. the investigation before tn,
grand jury was not a criminal case, blu
solely to ascertain whether a Grim,
had been committed, and it reaches
the conclusion that the questions asket
Counselman and his relation to the in
quiry show that it was such a case a
entitled him to invoke the protection
. of the cons titution.
The court, therefore, rules tina
!, Counselman was entitled to refuse t.
:. ans wer and directs that the iudgmen
: | of the circuit court be revised and thu
: case remanded, with direction to dis
: charge Counselman from custody.
, Killed In q Mine.
! DENVER, Col, Jan 13..Isaac Pearll
was killed by an explosion of gian
powder in the tunnel of the Ponce