The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-03-24
MOST ANsMER.
Witness Required TO Testify Though He
lncriminato Himself.

| Witness Required TO Testify, Though He
lncriminato Himself.
| Washington, March GA decision was
rendered In the United states supreme
court In tho ease of Theodore f. Brown.
| involving the right of court TO compel
answer by witness to the Interstate com
| incrre commissioners question. notwith-
| standing lie plead self determination as tho
| result OF nm answer
The decision was opposed TO Brown $
contention That he was protected by tho
| constitution from this requirement. and
| he decision OF the court below was AZ.
| ilrmed. The opinion was handed down by
| Justice Brown. Justices Field. Shiror, Gray
and White dissentod. holding that the con-
stttutional provision was sufficient Ia re.
icVe Brown from -he requirements TO an
swer
In announcing HIS opinion Justice Brown
said the question involved was whcther
HE law OF ls9i. specifically relieving wit
ncsses In Interstate commerce eases from
prosecution when they reveal facts which
witnesses IN sucn cases the priVileRe OF
silence as guaranteed by the constitution.
and The conclusion was that 1t did lie
SAID tliS act was IN the nature Of gem
ctal amnesty In such cases ana had boon
50 regarded and uphald In half n dozen
decisions In the State cOurts Rpplyiur Ia
the objection that. while the act served as
prevention of prosecution, It did no tshield
the witness from Disgrace involved IN CON
leasing criminal act. Justice Brown said
!, uid not nor VAS II contemplated by
provision that one should he shielded. He
asserted IN response TO objections that the
law would operate to protect II witness
from prosecution In the state courts, the
Federal statutes being superior to those
Of the states, that the latter statutes are
the supreme law of the land and apply in
the state as well as In the Federal courts.
lie also advanced the opinion that in this
case the refusal of Brown to give his testi-
inony was due rather 10 his desire to
shield others than himself. AS Brown was
only the auditor of the road. his duties
were not OF such a character that he could
Ia IN
OF the law. II was the intention that the
constitutional provision should protect
from imaginary evils as in this case
The consequence OF granting immunity
from answsfl.g would be eventually to
render the interstate commerce laws IN
capable OF enforcement and the result
would be 20 PROSTATE congress at the feet
or the railroad corporations OF the coun-
the western district of Pennsylvania re-
luirhig MIN to ahswer questions us pro
pttll.icd was Therefore affirmed
Justice Shiras read dissenting opinion
IN which Justices Gray and White concur.
reh; n which lie took the position tina, the
Federal law would not shield the wjtncss
from prosecution In tho STATE court nnd
cApressed the opinion that the failure to
enforce the law Of 1893 would not weaken
tne ,ntrrsintc commerce law.
Justice FIELD also read dissentin, opin-
iph' lie heid that the amnesty granted In
me congressional act of 1888 was IN eject
a phidon and said that only the president
could exercise the function of pardonInn
re contended that fhe constitutional pro
VISION was intended as much for tho mr.
pose OF preventing the infamy ana dia-
kraCe u man might bring upon himself by |
ihorininating himself while on the Wit |
nsHN stand as for his protection against
Prosecution. he coniendcd that the law
~ question ,did not abrognte the constitu- |
ai,oil-litst, because the statute could not |
anIpsaie or IN any respect diminish the
protection conferred by the amendment |
ana secondly, because the statute does moi
provides protection against any nroceedingy /
y, -, PUNISH II. The constitutional ga feguard |
, tor security and liberty. said he, can not |
Ihe constitution has desired them The
~ ~ hot De SCI aside and replaced by some |
,nins tise. me citizen is entitled to the |
sttution assures him. 'e 'o'