St. Paul daily globe., 1896-03-24
CONSTITUTION IN QUESTION.
EMIT TO THE EXTENT SELF-IN-
CRIMINATION MAY BE
PLEADED.
POWER GIVEN THE COMMISSION
Witnesses Can He Forced to Answer
the Questions That Are Put 10
Them.

eision was rendered by the supreme
court of the United States today in
the case of Theodore c. Brown, in
Volving the right Of a court to compel
an answer by a witness, to questions
in interstate commerce cases, notwith-
standing he may plead self-incrimina-
tion as the result of an answer. The
decision was opposed to Browns con-
tention that he was protected by the
constitution from this requirement,
and the decision of the court below
was affirmed. The opinion was hand
ed down by Justice Brown. Justices
Field, Shiras, Gray and White dis
sented holding that the constitutional
provision was sufficient to relieve
Brown from the requirements to an
swer.
In announcing his opinion, Justice
Brown said the question involved was
whether the law of 1S93 specifically
relieving witnesses in interstate COM
merce cases from prosecution when
they reveal facts which might incrim-
mate themselves operates to take
from witnesses in such cases the priv
ilege Of silence as guaranteed by the
constitution, and the conclusion was
that it did Replying to the objection
that, while the act served as pro-
lection to a witness against prosecu-
tion, it did not shield from the dis
grace involved in confessing a GRIM
inal act, Justice Brown said it did
not nor was it contemplated by pro-
vision I'm the constitution that one
should be shielded. He also advanced
the opinion that in this case the re-
fusal OF Brown to give his testimony
was due rather to his desire to shield
others than himself. AS Brown was
only auditor of the road, his duties
Were not of such character that he
could be held criminally liable for any
violation of the law. 1t was the in
tentiOn that the constitutional pro-
vision should protect from real and
substantial dangers, and not from
imaginary evils, as in this case. The
consequence of granting immunity
from answering to such officials would
inevitably be to render the interstate
commerce laws incapable of enforce
ment, and the result would be to
PROSTATE congress at the feet of the
powerful railroad corporations of the
country.
The case came to the supreme court
on an appeal taken from a decision of
the circuit court for, the Western dis
trict of Pennsylvania, refusing to
grant a writ of habeas corpus, and
arose out of proceeding by the in
terstate commerce commission against
the Allegheny Valley Railroad COM
pany, of which Brown is auditor. He
was a witness before the grand jury
for the commission in this case, and
refused to answer certain questions
propounded to him on the ground that
in so doing he might incriminate him
self. He was then proceeded against
FOR contempt Of court, found guilty,
and sentenced to Imprisonment. Mr..
Brown pleaded his constitutional right
of silence, but the statute of Feb. II,
1893, requiring answers in such ques-
tiOns, was invoked against him, and
held to be valid by the circuit court
Justice Brown said the case involved
pm alleged incOmpatibility between that
clause of the fifth amendment to the
constitution which declares that no per-
bpli Sndll Dt COIllpelltd III dIy
ease to be a witness against himself"
and the act of congress of Feb. II, 1893.
The clause of the constitution was, he
said, susceptible of two interpretations.
If construed literally and the witness
is left to determine the matter for him
self, the practical result would be that
20 Cne could be compelled to testify to
q material fact in a criminal case un-
less he chose to do so. If, upon the
other hand the object of the provision
be to secure the witness against a GRIM
lnal prosecution, which might be aided
Indirectly or directly by his disclosure,
then, if no such prosecution be possible,
statute absolutely securing to him
immunity from prosecution would sat
ton.
On the point of shielding a witness
from disgrace, he said:
bound to contemplate the consequences of ex-
posure to his good name, and ought not to call
upon the courts to protect that which he has
himself esteemed to be Of such little value.
The safety and welfare Of an entire community
should not be put into the scale against the
reputation of a self-confessed criminal, who
ought not, either in justice or in good morals,
to refuse to disclose that which may be of
great public utility in order that his neighbor
may think we'll of him. The design of the
constitutional privilege is not to aid the wit
ness in vindicating his character, but to pro-
tect him against being compelled to furnish
evidence to convict himself of a criminal
charge. If ne secure legal immunity from
prosecution. the possible impairment of his
gCCd name Is penalty, which 1t is reasonable
EVIL -------