The morning times., 1896-03-24
BLOW At THE COMBINES
Interstate Commerce COnlmis-
sion May COmpel Testimony.
SUPREME COURT so DECIDES
Opinion Was Rendered Yesterday in
the Case of Auditor Brown OF the
Allegheny Valley Railread-Justice
Brewer Says Persons Refusing May
BE Punished for Contempt

BY bare majority the Supreme Court
of the United States has decided that per
sons subpoenaed To testify as to violations
of the interstate commerce law. especially
III the matter of the payment or Illegal
rebates ON freight 10 favored shippers. must
give etheifeyidenCe orbetn cont tempt ofcourt.
Tie case at bar came ON appeal in habeas
corpus proceedings from the circuit court
for the Western district or Pennsylvania.
the parties Of record being Theodore F.
Brown and John W Walker. marshal for
that district.
Brown was the auditoT Of the ALE
gheny Valley Railroad and was sub
poenaed To appear before tie grand Jury
and testify as To the pa ynIent OF rebates Il,
the Union Coal Company. or TO the trans
portatton for that company OF coal at less
than tariff rates in 1915.
Brown declined 10 answer on the ground
that To do >" would tend to accuse and in
crinilnate himself. and pleaded his cOnsti-
tutlOnal preFOgatiyc in that behalf. The
judge OF the district court held that he must
answer. and still refusing TO DO so he was
adjudged 70 be in contempt and committed
To the custody OF the marshal until he did
answer, ana paid fine Of $5.
BROWN TOOK APPEAL.
He applied to the circuit court for re-
lease on a writ or habeas corpus. but that
court declined TO discharge him. Then
he appealed to the Supreme Court or the
United States. The Gaze was argued in
January last
Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion
OF the court.
The clause o. the constitution in ttueS-
ton said the justice. lis obviously
susceptible OF two interpretations. II
ii be construed literally. as authorizing
the witness 10 refuse TO disclose any fact
which might tend 10 inCrimirate disgrace
or exrOsc him 10 Unfayorable comments,
then. as he must necessarily TO a large
extent determine uron his own conscience
and responsibility whether his answer to
the proposed question VIII have the ter
dency the practical result would be ttat
no one could be compelled 70 testify to
material fact in a criminal case unless
ne chose TO 90 SO, or unless IL was entirely
clear that the privilege was not set up in
good faith.
OBJECT OF THE PROVISION
If upon the other hand the ob !ect
of the pToTiSiOn hc 90 secure the witness
against Il criminal pI0sC, Uiiou. which
might be aided directly of Indirectly 10y
his disclosure. then, if 10 such Eros seCut5gu
! he possible-iu other wopis. u his iesti-
mony operate as a complete pauion for
the orfense 10 which IL IelGtss-a statute
absolutely securing 90 him such immunity
from prosecution would satisfy the de-
mandS OF the clause in question.
1t can only be said IN general that
the clause should be construed as il was
doubtless designed. 10 effect a practical
and benericent mrpose-uot necessarily
TO protect witnesses against every Dcssi-
ble detriment which might happen 10
| them from their testimony. nor TO Unduly
| impede. hinder or obstruct the adminiS-
tration or criminal justice.
That the statute should be upheld. if
it can lie construed in harmony with tho
fundamental law, viii be admitted. In
stead OF seeking for excuses for holding
/ acts OF the legislative power to be void
! by reason OF their conflict with the constr
! tuition, OF with certain supposed funda-
| mental principles Of civil liberty, the effort
should be to reconcile them il possible,
| and not to hold the law invalid unless is
was observed by Mr.. CHIEF Justice Marshall.
i'll Fletcher Us. Peck, the opposition be-
| tween the constitution and the law be such
( that the Judge feels clear and strong con-
I victim OF their incompatibilty with each
I othsT.'''
ONE OF GENERAL AMNESTY.
The opinion reviews in detail the origin
| Of the constitutional prerOgative, and of
/ its history in statute and decision. and OF
| the act IN question, says: 1t is virtually
! one of general amnesty, and belongs TO 4
! class of legislation which Is not uncommon
( either in England or in this country
! The statute does rot pIrport, nor is it
/ possible for any statute, TO shield the wit
| ness from the personal disgrace or Oppro-
| brium attached To the exposure OF his crime;
! but says tue court, '-the fact that the
! testimony may tend TO degrade the witness
] in public estimation does net exempt him
4 from the duty Of disclosure.
"A person who commits a criminal act
I is bound to contemplate the consequences
/ Of exposure TO his good name ana reputa-
! ton, and ought not TO call upon the courts
! to protect that which he has himself es-
/ tcemed to be of such little value. The
/ safety and welfare Of an entire community
1 should not be put into the scale against
/ the reputation OF a sCif-COHfesSed Grim
/ inal, 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 neighbOrS may think well
/ Of him