The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1896-03-24
CAN'T BLINDFoLD THE COURTS
WITNESSES IN INTERSTATE CASES
MUST TESTIFY.

Tbe Supreme Court Holds That the
amendment of Feb. II, 1898, to the
Interstate Commerce Law Sufii-
cientIy Satisfies the constitutional
Guaranty of PrOtectiOn-RaiIrOad
omcfaIs Must Testify as 10 Viola
lions of the Law.
washington March BY a hare ma
ioritv. the supreme court Of the United
states has decided that persons subpoen-
sed to testify as to violations of the in
tsrstate commerce law, especially in the
natter of the payment of illegal rebates
ON freight to favored shippers, must give
-beir evidence or be in contempt of court.
-rbe case at the bar came on an appeal in
babeas corpus proceedings from the cir
c,,it court of the Western district Of Penn
s,.l,ania. the parties of record being
theodore +. Brown and John ". Walker,
marshal for that district Mr.. Brown
us the auditor of the Allegheny Valley
railroad and was subpoenaed 10 appear
before the grand jury and testify as to
-be pavment of rebates 10 the Union Coal
CouDanv. or to the transportation for
mai company of coal for less than the
,srfff rates in 1S94-95 Mr.. Brown declin-
al to answer on the ground that to do so
would tend to accuse and incriminate him
of
r,earive in that behalf The judge of the
district court held that he must answer,
mud stiU refusing to do so. he was adj
judged TO be in contempt and committed
IN the custody Of the marshal until he
Ala answer and paid a fine of. s.. He ap-
,liod tn the circuit court for release on
writ of habeas corpus. but that court de-
clined to discharge him. Thereupon, he
appealed to the supreme court OF the
United States. The case was argued in
January last. -,.-..., a.. o.,,,,,o,,
Of HE court He said the case before the
court was whether or not the amendment
of Feb. H. 1898, to the interstate commerce
tional guaranty of protection.
ct can only be said in general that the
clause should be construed as IT was
6o,,btless designed to effect a practical
and beneficial purpose-not necessarily TO
protect witnesses against every possible
detrfment which might happen to them
from their testimony, nor 10 unduly I'M
pede hinder or obstruct the admlnlstfa-
lion of criminal justice. That the statute
should he upheld, If II can be construed IN
harmony with the fundamental law, VIII
be admitted Instead of seeking Tor eN-
cuses for holding acts of the legislative
power to be void by reason of their CON
ilict with the constitution, or with certain
supposed fundamental principles OF civil
liberty. the effort 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, the opposition between the consti-
tuition and the law be such that the judge
feels a clear and strong conviction OF their
incompaubility with each other
THE statute does not purpoIt, nor is 1t
possible for any statute, to shield the wit
ness from the personal disgrace of oppro-
hrium attached to the exposure of his
crime; but says the court, 1.-THE fact
that the testimony may tend to degrade
the witness in public estimation does not
exempt him from the duty of disclosure.
A tcf Nv1 ~ mi ~ a
bound to contemplate the consequences of
exposure to his good name and reputation,
and ought not to cali upon the courts to
protect that which he has himself esteem
Cd to be of such little value The safety
and welfare of an entire community should
not be put into the scale against the repu-
tation of a seIf-confessed criminal, who
ought not either in justice or in good mo-
rails to refuse to disclose that which may
be of great public utility, in order that
his neighbors may think we'll of him."
In conclusion the discussion of the case
the opinion referred to the relation of Mr..
Brown to the transaction under investi-
cation, saying 1T is entirely clear that
he was not the chief or even a substantial
offender against the law, and that his pri-
village was claimed for the purpose of
shielding the railway or its officers from
answering charge of having violated its
provisions. To say that Notwithstanding
his immunity from punishment he would
incur personal odium and disgrace from
answering these questions. seems too
much like an abuse of the language to be
worthy of serious consideration. But even
if this were true. he would still be COM
PEELED to answer II the facts sought to be
elucidated were material to the issue.
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 testfying,
the enforcement of the interstate COM
merce law or other analogous acts, where
in it is to the interest of both parties to
conceal their misdoings, would become
impossible, since it is only from the
mouths of those having knowledge of the
inhibited contracts that the facts can be
ascertained. While the constitutional
provision in question is justly regarded
AS one of the most valuable prerogatives
of the citizen its object is fully accom-
plished in the statutory immunity, and
the witness was compellable to answer
and that the judgment of the court be-
low must be affirmed
From the judgment of the court Justices
Field. Gray Shiras and White dissented,
Justice Field in a separate opinion, and
the others uniting in one prepared by
Mr.