The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-04-25
CANNOT OPEN BOOKS
Belonging to Private Organ
izations, Says Simonton.
Concurs With Judge Brewer That Books OF tor-
porations Cannot be Opened When They
Are Parties to Suit.

The taking OF testimony Ill ,ho ''->
| suit of the railroads against the eor-
poration Commission has been cohlih-
ued until next week.
In the former opinion rendered by
Judge Simonton he intimates that IL
the railroads should establish a prlma
facie case that evidence as to the
value of the railroads may be admiS-
sible. In that opinion he expressly
reserved the decision as to the books
of private corporations. Our Whining
ton correspondent was in error as TO
the decision. AS a matter of fact,
Judge Simonton had not decided this
question until yesterday when Judge
Shepherd received a copy of his opln-
ion which is as follows. ~D
In the Circuit Court of the United
States, for the Eastern District OF
North Carolina.
Sundry Railroad Companies
The North Carolina Corporation Com
mission, and others.
OF the questions certified to the
Court by the Standing Master every
point has been answered but one. An
officer or agent of private corpora
ton was served with a subpoena duces
tecum, requiring him to bring into
court the books of the corporation,
with the purpose of opening them
for examination. The witness very
properly has SO far obeyed the ext
gency of the subpoena as to produce
the books. ,Wharton on Ev See
310. He now objects to the eNamina-
ton of them upon the ground that Ii s
corporation is not a party to this suit.
~ n
betray all the secrets of the business
of the corporation. would expose its
business methods to the world. AMI
might work to it irreparable injury.
In Henry VS.. Travellers ms. Co, $50
Fed. Rep. Is, a motion to compel the
opening of the records of a corpora
ton not party to the suit, but whose
records it is claimed would disclose
something of Importance to the liti-
CATION. was refused by Mr.. Justice
Brewer.
in re Pacific Railway Co. VS.. Cum
MINIS, 50 Fed Rep. $50, Mr.. Justice
Field denied the authority of Congress
to grant such power to a Commission
created by it to examine the affairs
Of debtor of the Government. lie
puts this on the ground of the right
of personal security possessed by each
citizen. That this right OF personal
security involves not merely the pro-
lection of his person from assault, but
also the exemption of his private af-
fairs. books and papers. from the '7n-
spection and security of others. 1T
may be that when one is a party to
proceedings he may be compelled. on
proceedings for discovery, to open his
private books, proper interest being
shown in the party seeking the dis
cOvery.
But | am of the opinion that the
agent of a private corporation. not
party to the proceeding, cannot be
compelled to open for examination,
the books OF the company and expose
them to the scrutiny of third persons.
In L. S. VS.. Babcock, Fed. Cases
No. 14.iS4. The subpoena required the
production of certain telegraph mes
sageS. No objection whatever was
made because this would work Il be-
trayal of the business secrets of the
company In Russell VS.. Mcclellan,
Fed. Cases No. 12,15S, the person
served with notice to produce books
was party to the cause. Kirkpat-
rick VS.. Pope Manufacturing Co.. 81
Fed. Rep. 46, applies only to parties
to the suit.
In re Hrsch, "A Fed. Rep. 92S, re-
lates to public records. In Worthem
VS.. Continental, etc, Is Fed. Rep. 716,
Judge Wallace states broadly the
proposition contended for by COM
plainants. IT seems, however that the
main objection in that case was on
the score of inconvenience. But even
if the case goes to the length ascrib-
ed to it. the opinion of Brewer j., is
to the contrary. III this difference OF
persuasive authority, l prefer to side
with him.
CHARLES II. SIMONTON,
Circuit Judge
% April, 1900.
The taking of testimony has been
postponed, at the request of the rail
roads and by consent of the attor-
neys for the commission, until next
week when it will be continued IL
Wilmington.
Judge Shepherd and Col. Hinsdale
returned to the city yesterday.
Denied the assistance of private cor
porations, the railroads must now get
on new tack. They will invent some
other way to secure delay, for delay
is what they are fighting for in this
litigation.