The Washington times., 1894-05-20
pREcEDENTs FOR THE INVESTIGATION.
Witnesses May Decline to Answer Ques'
tious Which Would Incriminate Them.

Witnesses May Decline to Answer Ques'
tious Which Would Incriminate Them.
Some of the members of the Senate bribery
investigating committee spent part Of the
day in investigating precedents for investiga-
tions by Congress, and others in trying to de-
termine how far the committee can go in
compelling witnesses. Senators among Others.
to answer questions put by the committee or
produce papers demanded by 1t. They have
read several decisions of the Supreme Court
bearing upon the question.
The decision which has been most in de-
mand is that Of this court, delivered on the
llth of January, 1892, in the case of Charles
CounsemaE. Il Chicago grain dealer, who,
being summoned before the grand jury OF the
United States district court at the instance of
the Interstate Commerce Commission, de-
cliued to answer questions as to whether he
had received from the railroads rates on grain
different from those provided In the tariff
schedules of the roads. on the ground that in
replying to these questions he would crimi-
nate himself. An attempt was then made to
compel him to reply to the questions, and he
was taken into custody and fined $500. He
appealed his case TO the United States circuit
court, OF which Secretary Gresham was then
Judge. Judge Gresham sustained the decision
of the district court. and remanded Counsel
man to the custody of that court. From this
decision Counselman appealed to the Supreme
Court, which reversed the decision and Or
dered the discharge Of Counselman.
In recording this decision the Supreme
Court announced that the doctrine that the
meaning of the constitutional provision is
not merely that a person shall not be COM
pelled to be witness against himself in a
criminal prosecution against himself, but that
its object is to secure that Il person shall not
be compelled. when acting rs a witness in any
investigation. TO give testimony which may
tend to show that he himself has committed a
crime. The court also held that sit is a
reasonable construction of the constitutional
provision that the witness is protected from
being compelled to disclose the circumstances
OF his offense or the sources from which or
the means by which evidence OF its commits
sion, or of his connection with it, may be
obtained or made effectual for his con-
viction. without using his answers as direct
admissions against him."
This decision did not afford much satis-
faction to the members of the committee, who
think it will be difficult to compel witnesses
10 testify in the second branch of the investi-
CATION with which the committee is charged,
thst against the operations of the sugar trust,
in case there should be any who may desire
10 conceal its operations.
They did not find much more consolation
in other cases investigated In a decision
rendered in 1885 in the case of E. A. and
George H. Boyd, in which New York court
had sought TO compel these men to exhibit a
certain customs invoice in court for the in
formation of the United States attorney,
which was appealed to the Supreme Court,
that court decided that this order was an un-
constitutional exercise of authority.
In the case of Hallet Kilbourne, who was
ordered to jail because of his refusal to an
syer questions and TO produce papers de-
manded by House investigating committee,
the court held that while the House had
power to punish its own members for dis
orderly conduct and could exercise other con-
stitutional functions in that line and might.
when the examination Of witnesses was neces-
gary, fine or imprison contumacious witness,
the Constitution does not vest in either house
of Congress the power to punish for con-
tempt