New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-02-27
RAILROAD INTERESTS.
,r,,r m REFUSING TO TESTIFY

,.,,c,e,ov BY JUDGE GROssCUP WHICH WILL
AFFECT THE OPERATION OF THE INTER
STATE COMMERCE. LAW.
,oo Feb 9G-Judge Grosscup rendered de-
- i, the United States District Court this
,mnI,e holding that General Freight Agent James.
=, Tho Lake Shore road. and Gordon Mcleod agent
y, .he Merchants Despatch Freight Line, the wit
asscs who refused 10 answer questions put TO them
h tho Grand Jury. right in the position which
49,, took and that they canrot be compelled to
rswer James and Mcleod were asked questions
which were intended 10 draw out Information as to
,sral cuts in rates made by the companies which
,hev represent. Both refused to answer. on the
ground that the Fifth Amendment TO the Constitu-
ZION OF the United states gives every man the right
- refuse 70 make disclosures which will criminate
himself.
They took this position in spite or the lact that
on February H. 1898. Congress amended the inter
state act with the intention OF remedying the de-
feet pointed out in the law in the Supreme Court
decision In the Counselman case. Disrict-Attorney
Nichrst held that the amended law was as broad
as the constitutional amendment. in that 1t fully
exempted witnesses from prosecution lor ahyth'ns
.hov might disclose and asked for rule TO COM
init the witnesses to Jail for contempt II they did
not testify.
Judge Grosscup holds that Congress did not. and
cannot pass an act exempting anybody from the
operation Of the constitutional amendments. and
discharged the rule compelling Mcleod and James
10 testify The Court goes on TO say;
What was the real purpose Of the Firth Amend mend
rent? bid IL intend to guarantee immunity mere
hv against compulsory self-acclsatlon OF Srime
far it might bring to- the witness W. srre
Of memory. far as they brought ones former
acts within the definitions Of crime. inv0late as
aSIinst judicial probe or disclosure? The Counsel
man case leaves this question undecidea so far as
the supreme Court of the United states IS con-
ccrned j regard the opinion as an open one
The at bar inspires no wish IN tne rr Wonrs
ACT is a law of the land. and the witnesses ask
for protection under the amendment under e,re9'n 2,
before they had intention 10 cease violating
it 1t is the contest OF people VINO osp ,te
TO enforce H. Judged by this specific instance me
aTord the Witnesses immunity against esIyig S Is
obstruction in the PAIN OF Ine ,i, no he
Judged by a single specific instance. II was placed
In the organic law Of the and LOT Pnforc @
SS Of eases mat may come before the court:
What then, was the intention of the makers OF
The Firth Amendment? This can only be ascer-
s s ~ ~ the Tine in which they lived and TO the
influences and conceptions that were then in vogue
Re OVER T but the more gu oppression
of selfshness ruthless ana hc bsntsSs of future
history In my opinion The pryege 81 6 seH Se
Fifth Amendment was meant 10 eNtehu 10 al ''o
consequences of disclosure. ,,, :,
The effectiveness Of the statute of February H.
1SGg micht we'll be questioned on another ground.
l. Is Statute of pardon. Until the witness mans
his aSe lbs per ss The pardon be
comes effective only at the moment ana upon con,
ALTON Of disclosure. But pardon is not necessarily
Snilaieral No person is compelled 10 accept the
legislative executive grace. ., 49,. .h
In the case at bar it must be assumed mat tne
witness is guilty of some offence. In me az az
sre Of the statute of February II. 1893 he mas me
,,ndoubted constitutional right Of silence II Is sa1
mat that right is taken away by the immunity vi
rarjon extended by the statute Eut he CHOOSES now
10 accept such immunity or pardon lie prefers 10
stand upon his constitutional rights ana tdKe ms
chances of conviction rather than expose hlIns
10 me civil liabilities and the odium OF sel-coh-
fessed crime.
I|,r,r,c,. Attorney Nlilchrist said: The decision
a,rlias 10 every case in this district. but 1t does
not necessarily govern in any other district Ihat
I, will carry weight in all the other districts IS
certain The only hope for the Interstate Cominis-
sion row is TO raise the same question IN alotheF
dtstrsc and obtain a contrary decision, thus COM
neiiirr the railroads 10 appeal 10 the supreme
r a "a Stafford who represents the interstate
Commission acknowledged that the DECISION ci1ppies
ire commission In far as prosecutions are con-
cerned