Birmingham state herald. (Birmingham, Ala.) 1895-1897, 1896-03-24
Grand Central Dining Hall and Restaurant,
AN IMPORTANT RULING.
The Supreme Court Holds That Witness Can
Be Made to lncriminate
Himself.

Washington, March 23.-By bare ma
jority the supreme court of the United
States has decided that persons SUBJ
poenaed to testify as to the violations of
the interstate commerce law, especially
in the matter of the payment of illegal
rebates on freight to favored shippers
must give their evidence or be in con-
tempt of court. The case at bar came
on appeal in habeaS corpus proceedings
from the circuit court for the Western
district of Pennsylvania, the parties of
record being Theo f. Brown and John
w. Walker, marshal for that district
Brown was the auditor of the Allegheny
Valley railroad and was subpoenaed- to
appear before the grand jury and testify
as to the payment of rebates to the
Union Coal company or to the transpor-
tation for that company of coal at less
than the tariff rates in 1S94-95. Brown
declined to answer on the ground that
to do so would tend to accuse and in
eliminate himself, and pleaded his con-
stitutional prerogative in that behalf.
| The judge in the district court held that
/ he must answer, and still refusing to do
so he was adjudged to be in contempt
and committed to the custody of the mar
shall until he did answer and paid fine
of So. He appealed to the circuit court
for release on a writ of habeaS corpus
but that court declined to discharge him.
Thereupon he appealed to the supreme
court of the United States. The case was
argued in January last Mr.. Justice
Brown delivered the opinion of the court
He said the case before the court was
whether or not the amendment of Feb
ruary II, 1898, to the interstate commerce
law sufficiently satisfied the constitu-
tional guaranty of protection.
1t can only be said in general that the
clause should be construed as it was
doubtless designed to effect a practical
and beneficient pupoSe-not necessarily
to protect witnesses against every posi-
BILE detriment which might happen to
them from their testimony nor to UNI
duly impede, hinder or obstruct the ad-
ministration of criminal Justice. That
| the statute should be upheld If 1t can be
construed in harmony with the funda-
mental law, will be admitted. Instead of
| seeking for excuses for holding acts of
| the Legislative power to be void by rea-
| son of their conflict with the constitution
| or with certain supposed fundamental
| principles of civil liberty, the effect
| should be to reconcile them If possible
and not to hold the law invalid unless,
| as was observed by Mr.. Chief Justice
| Marshall in Fletcher VS.. Peck 1.-The OPP
| position between the constitution and the
| law was such that the judge feels clear
| and strong conviction of their incom-
| patibility with each other"
1.-THE statute does not purport, nor is it
possible for any statute to shield such
witness from the personal disgrace or
| opprobrium attached to the exposure of
| his crime;" but "the fact that the testi-
| mony may tend to degrade the witness
| in public estimation does not exempt him
| from the duty of disclosure A person
who commits a criminal act is bound to
| contemplate the consequences of expo
| sure to his good name and reputation,
| 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 COM
munity should not be put into the scale
against the reputation of a self-eonfess-
| ed criminal, who ought not, either in
| justice or in good morals, refuse to dis
close that which may be of great public
| utility, in order that his neighbors may
/ think well of him."
In concluding the discussion of the case
| the opinion referred to the relation of
Brown to the transaction under investi-
| cation, saying: ut is entirely clear that
he was not the chief, or even substan-
| tial offender against the law, and that
! his privilege was claimed for the purpose
| of shielding the railway or its officers
from answering charge of having vio-
| lated it's provisions
| IF, as was justly observed in the opin-
| ion of the court below, witnesses stand
| ing in Browns position were at liberty
to set up an immunity from testifying
| the enforcement of the interstate COM
| merce law, or other analogous acts,
wherein it is for the interest of both par
| ties to conceal their misdoings, would be-
| come impossible, since II is only from
the mouths of those having knowledge
| of the inhibited contracts that the facts
| can be ascertained. While the cOnstitu-
tional provision in question is justly re-
| garded as one of the most valuable pre-
negatives of the citizen, its object is fully
accomplished by the statutory immunity,
| and we are therefore of the opinion that
the witness was compellable to answer,
and that the Judgment of the court be-
| low must be affirmed"
From the Judgment of the court JUS
| tees Field, Gray, Shras and White dis
sented-Field in a separate opinion and
the others uniting in one prepared by
| Mr.. Justice Shiras
| An Infected Ship.