The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-03-24
THE CASE is DECIDED
United States Supreme Court On Violations
Of the Interstate GommsrCe Law.
PERSONS WHEN SUBPOEAaED MUsTTALx
The Fact That the Testimony May
Tend To Degrade the witness HI
Public EstimatiOn Does Not EN-
empt Him From the Duty OF Dis.
ciosuro-An Exhaustive Opinion.

Washington, March 23.-By bare
majority the Supreme Court of th,
United States has decided that the
persons subpoenaed to testify as TO
violations of the Interstate commerce
law. especially in the matter or the pay
ment of Illegal rebates on freight to
favorite shippers, must give their cvi-
dence or be In contempt OF court. The
case at bar came on APPEAL In haheus
corpus proceedings from The Circuit
Court of the Western District of Penn.
sylrania, parties OF record heing Thco-
dore T. Brown and John w. Walker,
Marshal for that district. Brown was
the auditor Of the Allcrheny Valley
railroad and was subposnaed 10 appear
before the Judge and testify az Ia the
payment of rebates 10 the Union Coal
Company. or to the TRANSFORMATION for
that company of coal at less than tariff
rates in lS9i5. Brown declined TO ar
swcr OH the ground that to do so would
t,nd to accuse and incrlmtnnte HIM
self, and pleaded his constitutional pre-
rogaiivc IN that behalf The Judge of
the District Court held that he must
answer. and still refusing To do so he
was adjudgcd to be In contempt and
committed 10 the custody Of the Mar
shall until hu did answer and paid Il
fine of S5. He appealed to the Circuit.
Court for release on IA writ OF habeas
corpus. but that court declined to dis
charge him. Thereupon he appealed 10
the Supreme Court OF the, United States.
The case was argued in January last.
Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opin-
fum Of the court. lie said the case
before the court was whether or not
t!ri amendment of February II. 1893, to
the Interstate commerce law sutii-
GENTLY satisfied the constitutional guar
anty of protection. 1t can only
he said In general that the clause should
be construed. as 1t was doubtless de-
signed Ia effect II practical and bcnc-
ncent purpcse-not necessarily to pro-
tect witnesses against every possible de-
triment which might 'hnppen to them
from their testimony. nor to unduly mn
pcda, hinder or obstruct the admins
tTation Of criminal justice. That the
statute should be upheld. II 1t can bn
construed In harmony with the funda-
mental law Will be admitted. In
stead of seeking for excuses for hold
ing acts OF the legislative power to be
void by reason of their conflict with
the constitution or with certain sup
posed fundamental PRINCIPLES OF civii
lii, rty. the effort should be to recon-
cile them If possible and not 10 hoid
The law invalid unless. as was observed
by Mr.. Justice Marshall In Fetched
constitution and the law he such that
The Judge feels clear and strong con-
vic,ion of their incompatibility with
each other"
."rhe statute does not purport. nor Is
I, nosslblc for any statute 10 shield the
witness from personal disgrace or oppro-
hri,m attached 10 the exposure oi ms
crime; but" says the court IN" 'acl
,hat the testimony may tend to degrade
In an, IL c docs
exempt him from the duty of disclosure,
A pcrson who commits q criminal act
is bound to contemplate the conSe-
uuences Of exposure 10 his GOOD name
and reputation. and ought not to cail
upon the courts TO protect thhi which
ne has himself esteemed to be OF such
l.tlc value. The safety and welfare OF
an entire community should not be put
into the scale against the reputation
Of a self-conressed criminal. who ought
not. either In justice or In good morals.
io refuse 10 disclose that when may
be of great public utility. In order tnat
his neighbors may think well OF him.
In concluding the decision Of the case.
the opinion referred to the relation OF
Brown 10 the transaction under inres!i-
CATION. saying: 1T is entirely clear that
ne was not the chief or even substantial
offender against the law. and that his
privilege was claimed for the purpose
II shielding the railway or It's officers
from answering charge of having vio-
lated It's provisions. TO say that. not
w!thstand!nR his immunity from punish
mcnt he would incur personal odium
and disgrace from answering these ques-
tinns. seems 10 me so much like abuse of
the Language 10 be worthy of serious
consideration. But. even If this were
true. he would still be compelled to ans
wer. If the facts sought to be calculated
were material TO the issue.
IF. ms 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 tcstifying.
the enforcement OF the interstate COM
merce law or other analogous acts,
wherein il is for the interest of both
parties to conceal their miSioings.
would become impossible. since II Is only
from the mouths of those having knowl-
edge of the inhibited contracts can the
informal tion be obtained
The Judgment of the court below must
be affirmed"
From the Judgment Of the court JUS
tices Field. Gray, Shiras and White dis
sented. Justices Field In separate
opinion, and the others uniting in one
prepared by Mr.. Justice Shiras.