The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-03-24
RIGHTS OF WITNESSES.
THE AMENDMENT no THE INTER
STATE COMMELCE LAW VILfD.
An Important Decision of the United
States Supreme Cou Regarding
Contempt of Court.

J interstate commerce law, especially IN lht
matter OF The payment OF Illegal rebates
on freight 60 faVOrite shippers. must si' c
, their evidence or b. in contempt OF court.
The case atbsr came on in ApTil Ia habeas
corpus proceedings from the Circuit Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
} the parties Of record beins Theodore +.
Brown and John W. Wake. marshal for
that district. Brown was the auditor OF
the Allegheny Valley railroad. and was
subpOenaed to appear before the grand
jury and testify AZ to the payment OF re-
bates 10 the Union Coal Company, or TO
the transportation for that company o.
| coal at less than tdrlh rates Ia 1871 ..
Brown declined 10 answeg on the srOund
| that 10 DO so would tena to accuse ana
! lncriminate himself and pleaded his con-
! sututional prerOgatiye IN tnat behalf.
| The judge OF the district court held th1t
| he must answer, and, still refusing TO no
| so, he was adjudged 10 be in contempt ana
| committed 10 the custody OF the mar
| shan until he aid answA' a.i paid II
| line Of s. he applied to the C..cuit Court
| Tor release on writ OF haDe1s CORPUS,
| but that court declined 10 discharge MIN.
| IhercupOn 30 appealed 10 the Supreme
| court OF the United States. TIE case was
argued in January last Mir. Justice
| Brown delivered the opinion OF the court
| tie sdfu the case before the court was
| whether * not The amendment OF Feb
! ruary If, 1893. TO the interstate commerce
| Jaw sufficiently satisfied the constitutional
| guaranty OF protection.
RECONCILE II POSSIBLE.
1T can only be said in general that
| Ihe clause should be construed. as IL was
! doubtless designed, % cffcct q practical
! ana beneiicent purpose, not ne essaf!iy 70
| protect witnesses against every possible
/ detrimont which might happen to them
| from their testimony, nor 10 dnculy i'm
! pcde, hinder. or Obstruct the administra-
| tlcn OF criminal justice. That tie statute
should be upheld. il 1t can be cons .rued
in harmony with TIE fundamental law VIII
( be admitted instead OF seeking fOr ok
/ cuscs for holding acts OF the legislative
| power 70 be void by reason or their con-
| Iict with the Constitution, on with GER
! tain supposed fundamental principles OF
| civil liberty, the EFFORT should be 10 recon-
| Gle them. n possible. and not TO hold
| 'he law invalid unless, az was observed
| by Mi Chief Justie Marshall, in Fletcher
| against Peck, the opposition between the
! Constitution and the law be such that
| the judge feels clear and strong cOnNic-
| ton OF their ineompaibiliiy WIN rdct
| other"
| IL possible ior any statute TO shield the
| witness from the personal disgrace or
! OPP ohrium attached TO the exposure OF
! his crime: but, says the cOn.,, the lat
| that the testimony may tend 10 degrade
! the witness in public estimation does not
| exempt HIM from the duty or disclosure.
| A nerson who commits a criminal act l.
bound 20 contemplate the consequences OF
| exposure 10 his good name and reDuta-
tiCn. and ought not 10 call on the c1iris
10 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-confessed
criminal, who ought not, either in JUS
tice or In good morals to refuse to dis
close that which may be OF great public
utility, in order that his neighbors may
think well of him"
LAW AS TO WITNESSES.
In concluding the discussion OF the
case, the opinion referred TO the relation
of Brown 10 the transaction under inVesti-
CATION, saying: 1t Is entirely clear that
he was not the chief. or even a substan-
tial offender against the law. and that
his privilege was claimed for the purpose
OF shielding the railway or its officers
from answering a charge of having vio-
lated It's provisions. To say that not
withstanding his immunity from punish
ment. he would Incur personal Odium and
disgrace from answering these questions
seems too much like an abuse Of language
to be worthy OF serious consideration.
But, even II this were true, he would be
still compelled to answer IL the facts
sought TO be elucidated were material 10
the issue
IL as was justly observed IN the cpin-
ion Of the court below. witnesses standing
up on immunity from testifying, the en-
lOrcement Of The interstate commerce law
or other analogous acts, wherein IL Is
Tor the interest Of both parties T. conceal
their misd Ongs, would become imDOssi-
bic. since II Is only from toe mouths OF
those having knowledge of the inhibited
contracts that the facts can be ascer-
tanned. While the constitutional pro-
vision in question is justly regarded as
one Of the most valuable psrogatives Of
the citizen. its object IS flil 49, inillishc,
by the statutory immunity, and we are,
therefore. Of the opinion that the witness
was coInpelable TO answer and that the
judgment OF the court below must be
From the judgment Of the court Us tees
Field Gray. Shiras. and Whi,e dissented
Justice Field in separate opinion, and
ne others uniting in one prepared by
Mr.. Justice Sh.ras.
OTHER CASES.
Chief Justice Fuller announced to-day
that the ccie brated case Of Judge Iong.
the Michia IN Supreme Court, AGAINST
p, commissioner Lpchren. Involving the
20 Yer Of he Commissioner 10 re-ratc abe
IuG yc's pensiur, which waA argued last
non. n. had bee assigned Or rehclr-
ng, a nd set 90 IA Tor arg rnent on the
econd Monday Of next term.
The cases pres, 'nted FOR Iii ,cuss'on upon
he poN,g Of ca mptrollor fowler 90 re
use 10 Itsy the sugar bouaty voted bv
and tn customs case OF Salt
install. Collector. W. BirtwrH were re-
-. gncd tor arg Iment on the 18Th Of
April.
The Chief JustiC annouT ced that the
Court would ,ake "a recess rom April gd
o April 18th, that the call 81 the docket
would he suspcnda May In. and thai
he Court would u Ially al burn fer the
ERIN on May 9th The announcement
# the date of atiournmei II so far in
idvance is unnslai- Last 81 lar the court
adjourned June Sd.
Chief Justice EnDss-. for Jg sjice Brewer.
who is in. San Antonio. with his sick
laughter to-day announced b. decision of
ne Supreme Court q the L nitca States
affirming the judgus mt of nc Court cf
'iaims. in favor Of the United States
lpon the claira of IN widow OF John Z.
Southu 'orth was a United
states commissioner IN Louisiana. and i'm
S7G ,rade the last a tempt. according 20
Attorncy-General Dodge. by an officer OF |
hat class. 10 regula te purify the reg
straiion lists He issued $500 warrants
IN nine days. and a petition was filed IN |
he Court Of Claimsi for the recovery OF /
Sc. coo 2 Zee " $40 b eng claimed for each !
Tha-c w. re two netifions. IN |
for s1o.9@ for 200 Warrants |
hat produced 10 material results. ana /
Dnc for $1,000 for 100 warrants upon /
which arrests were made. The first one /
was finally disposed of two years ago. IN !
favor Of the United States and the opin- [
on to-day affirmed the judgment of The
- ff2f In, h.,