The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-11-21

tho tcitimony ~ vltnssaes and lnapec'inn ~
bouka mentioned we're not necessary fpf 'he
prosecution - no civl n''i"n .nu'hgfyrl
Wv Tho ItN. mt no such tiyil action thHr'l
ho uuriltrrl ~ f"str1in ~ Itcvrni' ufiHr
tho fi,'. d.tlu4"d ~ yll he I~ru",rtaift 70,
con-id'f Nm" other i"1ilf"- u M. law Witch
appellant uffu4 M condemnation ~ tho Inv
~ ui.ur.'' i'iuupl lh1t thoo Yuc.'ipus
may T." Ifut'flN fui+rl M ihis IrIrll -o"ua
10 -" supported h1 HWIl" nu'horl'
Tho urirt .huuld lo reversed Win 90 o.ef.
md di-nurH.u"tt- "u tlts lpIenl. AMI iN,
motion f." di-ul-- IN spec Al term granted
-cc nd opinion ~ Ii-iic, Kellogg b..
written u.ur the motion 10 dismiss the hrIcIl
hy M" To- trust attorneys Il" IA" Nrrolin'"
DIVISION from the order appointing u @rcfor'r
Iu-iiC' Kellogg and IA" court hold that NE"
"rdsr wA- upt"nlnbl".
l. h- opinion Justice smith touches only
mon Nh" immunity provision Of TIE Anti
Trust law and makes an Important point against
Il II" -lts
nv the Constitution. both state and Federal
T. gwen "a every citizen the right II picnt-
'i"n from s'lf-incriminntipn Ia" statute r.
1HirlnR the witness "a testify assumes I" grant
Transaction concerning which be- may testify
lhl~ provision. coiuprchensiv" aud prob ably
.~hr'tiy" To- Protect n witness from rro-,''i-
not assume To-. nor could II. provii" immunity
Tor offences committed under the statute II
any ether STAT" or of III" United states II.
therefore,, thc~" Witnesses, by their answers
would subject themselves 20 prosecution for
.timcs under the Federal law they az" rt-
tttl1d TO ~" Protection. both of III" state and
Federal Constitutions In $3.50 an act wt-
pt~-"d hy congress and received the l,N",I-
ave approval, entitled an act 10 protect trade
lnl commerce" AGAINST unlawful restraints and
This act. assuming to regulate interstate
trade. while Offering somewhat II, phras'ology
thereto. The contract here chaiisnred con-
taE@.n from the s State of Maine and the TTldEc
IN Philadelphia. Baltimore and Washington
OF PROPERTY taken from this state and from
If this contract be obnoxious to our statute.
II, T'Hm'r SIl1IIy within IN, cond%mnai4n
liable: both under. our stat" law and under
IN" Federal law. To require the@r, witnesses
IN" making of the contract alleged In. Ia"
petition or connect them with u making
execution. would, therefore, b" an IT,
70 them by i}h~' Constimtion TIE -ola
basis Of the proposed action Of, The A,torc
IN" contract, the iHCt of It, III caIfy = the
fact to be- proven In the action. The
SOuGlt To be- examined j. the Prc~I-
20 the making. and Engaged with the cor
and ia it, behalf IN executing. the
claimed 70 be- criminal I can coin
Of no posSlhl" inquiry material 10 the
-wcr which Would tend to convict the witness
Il a crime under the Federal statute, Ii these
views w 'tTI''l lui- .'NNllllilill bl was not
ordered. And this question can, !
think, be raised by the witness and AZ This
time. The witness her" asserts his privilege
demands the Constitutional protection.
There is as yet no defendant in the action who
ran protect him. His right TO this relief
seems TO me clear. II becomes unnecessary
hen. TO discuss the legality Of the contract
alleged In the petition, Such n discussion
would be more profitable when the exact
of the contract l. disclosed than upon
general allegations In II petition made upon
Information and belief"