The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-03-02

the aid Of any court Of the United states In reauir
ing the sttendanco and testimony OF witnesses ane
the production OF books and documents; 10 Obtain
from any Circuit, Court of the United States in case
OF contumaey or refusal 70 obey . subppus issued
to a common carrier or o,her person. an order com
pellns attendance and testimony and the produo'
ton Of the documents desired failure to obey such
order OF the Circuit Court being punishable a. con
tempt thereof: similar provisions As TO depositions
any person may be com PEELED TO appear and de
pose and 70 produce documentary evidence
amendment Of Feb. TO- 1871"
s. That no psrson--lnot merely no common
carrierl shall be excused from testifying or pro-
! ducing books and documents before the Interstate
! Commerce Commission 10 any proceeding criminal
| or Otherwise on the ground that the testimony
| or documentary evidence may tend 70 eliminate
him or subjec, him TO a penalty or forfei'ure but
that no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to
penalty on account OF evidence so given, except
In case Of his perjury; and Tat the failure Of any
person 70 attend and testify. or 70 produce books
and papers or 70 answer any iaSiW inquiry shall be
an offence punishable. on conviction by court OF
oompstent Jurisdiction. by me from 500 TO 5000.
or by Imprisonment, up 10 one year. or by both nne
and imprIsonment.-IAet OF Feb. II, 1885,"
Such 10 the machinery Of compulsion
provided by previous statutes for Fed
eral inquiry, through the Interstate
Commerce Commission, into the affairs
Of common carriers engaged directly in
interstate commerce. The new law pur-
ports to put that same machinery
but only 50 far as the same may be
applicable at the disposition Of the
new Commissioner Of Commerce to as
sist him in his diligent investigation OF
the general facts as to the organization,
conduct and management of any cor
poration engaged in foreign or interstate
commerce; the declared purpose not
being, as in the other case. the enforce
ment of any existing law or the assertion
Of any distinct principle, but the gather
ing of data to enable the President to
make recommendations to Congress!
We think it will be clear to- any intelli-
gence that has followed the analysis thus
far that the transfer Of the aforesaid
machinery Of Federal inquisition from
the Interstate Commerce Commission
with regard to common carriers to the
Commissioner Of Commerce with regard
to any other corporation doing any bust
ness beyond the State line, adds not one
particle to it's potency or to its practices
penetrative efficiency.
That is to say, the compulsion Of law
upon miscellaneous corporations to dis
close their business remains precisely
what it has been for the past ten years,
neither more nor less. Under the law as
it has stood since Feb. IL, 1893, any pro-
ducing corporation, in the persons Of
its officers. or any joint stock company
or any combination of corporations in
the persons OF its legal representatives,
could be subpenaed just the same as
any private individual and compelled to
testify or produce books or contracts
whenever such evidence bore directly
upon the case Of a common carrier. I'm
der investigation by the Commissioners
as to matters within their legitimate
Jurisdiction. II the producing corpora
ton so subpenaed refused to testify in
the specific matter involving the Inter-
state Commerce law, or to produce books
or contracts bearing upon that specific
matter. the courts could be called upon
to coerce the recalcitrant concern. If
it's representatives persisted in con-
tumacy they could be punished, on con-
viction, by heavy fine or considerable
term Of imprisonment.
But suppose in such q case the Inter-
state Commerce Commissioners, armed
with the provisions Of law above quoted,
had seen At to extend the inquiry to mat
tiers not directly pertinent. Suppose
that with the President Of manufact-
uring or producing trust on the witness
stand under oath, they had attempted to
extract from him evidence relating to
the business Of his corporation, but not
relating to the special transaction within
the subject Of its inquiry. Can there be
any doubt as to what the witness would
do under those circumstances? He
would refuse to answer Questions irrele-
want TO the case, outside the Jurisdiction
Of the Commission and intended to ex-
tOTt RentTdl lfuOf fnduOn TeRdTOlnR the
intro-State affairs Of his State-created
corporation, affairs over which the Fed
eral Government can exercise no SUPER
vision or control. And il under such
circumstances the Interstate Commerce
Commission invoked the judicial ma
chinery which the act provides for the
compulsion OF witnesses, can there be
any doubt as % what the courts would
do, sooner or later' They would sustain
the witness in his refusal, and purge him
Of contempt; just as surel, as any APP
pellate Court anywhere in the land would |
the attempt Of an in |
ferior tribunal 10 compel an incidental /,
witness in suit. let us say. for damages
growing out Of q railway accident, 70
produce his butchers and bakers and
candlsstick makers bills. or TO disclose
the amount and source 81 his personal !
income.
The same thing would hAppsn in case
of any usurpation Of inqulsitorisl power |
nv the Commissioner of Cotnmercs