Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1896-01-01
ID COMMERCE COMMISSION
New Of Its Work Taken From the
Ninth Annual Report.
II DECISIONS AGAINST THE ACT.
'rszPft
3)s'fcs of Mileage, Trsfac and Acci-
1sn's--Trafiio Agreements In Viola
= tion Of tho Law-Cases In Court.

t1J1sifcs of Mileage, Trafac and Acoi-
sn's--Trafiio A grsen~nts In Vioia-
tion Of tho Cases In Court.
TIA earlier reports made by the COM
ni1aion to congress were largely given
av0 discutsloniof the act, It's interpreta-
ipf and Intended application; and 1t may
be nccepted as true that the objects and
tpiirements OF this law are thoroughly
we'll known 10 carriers and shippers and
% The public. Such discussion may we'll
rive Blaze. temporarily. to consideration
Il ~ means necessary to make effective
lndttIva force to the law in accordance
witI{the purpose OF its enactment. This
lr fhree sections declare the purposes
bbjocJs of the act while the suisse
sections supply. or are intended to
~. the means for making It effective
20 remedies for It's infraction and FRO
~ penalties for violating its require
<ntf. rho hindrances TO the execution
Inc act and obstacles which have pre-
tnted and stll obstruct Its efficient on
1rcefnent are described. In the third
4tp after the act to regulate commerce
pc{nbe law 1t was held. In the United
t3tcs district court for the Northern
It3ct OF Illinois, Upon indictment
<ainst q common carrier. u corporation,
hat under the terms OF the statute the
crporuion was not indlctable. The COM
nipsion has several times recommended
Eat Corporations should be made subject
o Indictment according TO the original
attention. OF the law tnnd five years have
icreed since this recommendation was
mt ,made). but this has not been done.
nd as the courts hold. corporations are
otindictable.
The cases are rare and exceptional, II
ot accidental. In which offenses made
DA4demeanors by the act can be proven
Y other testimony than that OF one of
he 4guilty parties. which testimony Is
rcyided for In section $50 OF the Revised
fatntes The decision of the supreme
ourt In the case of Counselman, wit
go who refused to testify before a grand
nry on the alleged ground that his tes-
mohy would tend to ..riminate him.
90 that section $50 OF the Revised Stat
tes Is Unconstitutional and void. Inc
vtrthrow OF this statute, which had been
.orco twenty-five years and applied as
ell 20 all osher msdemeanors as 10 those
rLtns under the act to regulate COM
ierfe, rendered proof OF guilt under the
~ uhprlcucable without further legisla-
On ana several pending indictments
ef9 necessarily dismissed. The supreme
ourt said that, where testimony OF this
1Alhcter - required by law. the statute
suu ai1ord absolute immunity against
urtper prosecution of the witness for the
pse 10 which the question relntes
~ commission recommended additional
rlaton IN conformity with that which
supreme court had said would be
M, and on February II. 1893, subsequent
ruch recommendation, congress passed
5net--set forth In fun in the report
fnY1 hat
ri person shall be prosecuted or subject
e any penalty or forfeiture for or on
esotht OF any transaction. matter or
1uH concerning which he may testify"
oort year later 1t was held, In The
nfted states district court for the North
rnldistrict OF Illinois in the case OF one
ans u. james who refused 10 testify
q the ground that his testimony would
ne 70 erminnte him. that the act OF
Smuary II, 1898. required testimony
'bifh would tend to eliminate the VIII
VA and that the act was therefore un-
u@ttt tutlJnal, The government could not
pptnl. and Il was impossible to obtain Il
cNH on or the supreme court upon the
utftion until 1t could be raised and d
!uvrent ruling secured In another juIis-
H.fn' The commission reported the
acit 10 congress and recommended that
ne law be S. amended as to allow the
oNeinment TO arpcal 10 tho supreme
tui1Y Two years the question was raised
APE western district OF Pennsylvania
he case of Theodore II. Brown, who
|*A4EtI 10 MY DfAufE the United StlIEs
lHW Jury IN reiatio TO TIE alleged Civ
Y,2I rebates by Officers of the Allegheny
cIey Railroad company on the ground
nat his testin ony might tend to crir1i-
4{e himself. Brown was held for con-
Upt py the United States district Judge.
ne ruling was. afterwards sustained by
2Sap court ana me act Of Of, February
oM pending In the supreme court and
been set down for a hearing on Janu-
rx next. II thus appears that fof
INXf iinn tlNC wears l0af baa
tXxhcueaDie 10 obtain testimony on
Eh TO enforce the penal provisions Of
NJ, thouEh Few convictions of no
<t9t Importance have been secured upon
tumony casual and accidental
w the case OF crimson, who In 1892 re-
@sb ded bv yh ,No Sertsin QUESTIONS lro-
4n arplied to the United States circuit
Tor the Northern district OF Illinois
~ nn order compelling the witness to
Ter and also TO produce certain docil-
airy evidence which had been re
y: The. court held that so much Of
~U " or the act as authorizes or re-
WE the courts 10 use their process in
MH injuries before the Interstate Com
.885Iee commission Is Unconstitutional and
GA but the supreme court In MAY
Sef. three members dissenting reyorsei
his decision, AMI held that this require.
he constitution. The attorney ,,enerni
the United States. in his report 10 con.
rvs for that year, said that this decision
fda ansented 10 by only bare majority
fthe court, and that its consequences arc
Enc right Of the commission to invoke
NJ aid OF the courts In securing testi.
Iby, books and paners was thus es-
IbI!shed, but this right had uniii then
80 SO persistentlv questioned and denici
no make the provlsion Of the statute
S1etically inorerative. But this power
tomnei the attendance o.. witnesses aud
Of eS9ks .c ed IF 70 SSgas so@t
Nthe Northern district Of Illinois de-
Ping the Get OF February II, 1sas. un-