The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-03-24
REFUSED TO ANSWER
An Auditor brought to Terms by the
Interstate Commission.
DECIDED BY SUPREME COURT
Justice Grown Hands Down His
Opinion i'm the Case of Theo-
dore Brown, While Other
Justices Dissent

: United States court in the case of
! Theodore F. Brown involving the right
OF the court to compel answer by the
witness to questions in interstate com
merce matters, notwithstanding he
may plead Standardization as the re-
suit of his answer. The decision was
opposed to Browns contention that he
was protected by the constitution from
the requirement and decision of the
court below affirmed. The opinion was
handed down by Justice Brown. Jus
tees Field, Shiras. Gray and White
dissented, holding that the constitu-
tional provision was sufficient to relieve
Brown from the requirements to an
swer. This case was advanced on the
docket of the supreme court on the
motion of the attorney general made
at the instance of the interstate COM
merce commission. 1t was considered
a test case and the claims set forth
in letter written for the commission
that a large number of similar cases
must wait upon it's final decision by
the court. The case came to the SUI
perior court on an appeal taken by
Brown from the decision of the circuit
court for the western district of Penn
sylvania refusing to grant a writ of
habeas corpus and arose out of a pro-
ceeding by the interstate commerce
commission against the Allegheny VAL
ley Railroad company, of which Brown
is an officer. He was a witness before
the grand jury for the commission in
this case and refused to answer GER
tain questions propounded to him on
the ground that in so doing he might
incriminate himself. He was then pro-
ceeded against for contempt of court,
found guilty and sentenced to impris-
onment. Brown pleaded his constitu-
tional right of silence, but the statute
of Feb. II, 1893. requiring answers in
such questions. was invoked against
him and held to be valid by the circuit
court.
In announcing his opinion, Justice
Brown said the question involved, was
whether the law of 1893, specifically re-
lieving witnesses in interstate com
merce cases from prosecution when
they reveal facts which might incrimi-
nate themselves, operates to take from
witnesses in such cases the privilege
OF silence as guaranteed by the consti-
tuition, and the conclusion was that IL
did. He said this act was in the. ma
ture Of a general amnesty, in such
cases. and had been so regarded and
upheld in half a dozen decisions in
the state courts He said the law |
would operate to protect a witness |
from prosecution i'm the state courts.
but 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.
He also advanced the opinion that
IN this case the refusal of Brown TO
give his testimony was due rather to
MS 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 be held Grim
nally liable for any violation of the
aw. 1t was the intention that the
provision should protect
rom real and substantial dangers and
lot from imaginary evils, as in this
'ase. The consequence of granting
from answering to such off,
'ials would inevitably be to render the
Interstate commerce laws incapable OF
and the result would be
o PROSTATE congress at the feet of the
powerful railroad corporations of the
ountry. The decision of the circuit
curt for the western district of Penn
ylvania requiring him to answer the
questions as propounded was therefore
.ffirmed.
Justice Shiras read a dissenting opin-
on, i'm which Justices Gray and White
oncurred, i'm which he took the posi-
ion that the federal law would not
HELD the witness from prosecution.
nd exposed the opinion that the failure
o enforce the law of 1893 would moi
weaken the interstate commerce law.
Justice Field also read a dissenting
pinion. He held that the amnesty
ranted in the congressional act of 1898
vas in effect a pardon. and said that
My the president could exercise the
JUNCTION of pardoning. He contended
hat the constitutional provision was
Intended as much for the purpose of
reventing disgrace a man might bring
pom himself by discriminating himself
Ihile on the witness stand as for his
rejection against prosecution He con-
ended that the law in question did not
brogate the legislation because the
tate did not abrogate any protection
onferred by the constitution: and. sec
ndly, because the statute did not pur-
ort to abrogate the offense, but only
rovides protection against any pro-
eeding TO punish il.
Other upr me Court Matters ,
Washington. March 23.-Chief Justice
uller to-day announced that the pen
on case of Judge Long. which has
nee. beeen argued, has been restored to
he docket for argument before the full
ench of the supreme court, and that IL
ould be heard on the second Monday
the next term. The case of Wong
i'm Ark. to test the citizenship of a
erson born i'm this country of Chinese
lrents was set for the same date. The {
lief Justice announced that on Thurs
ny the court may take a recess until {
Onday, April %. and that the present ,
rm be suspended. Court will adjourn
nally after the May term. 1