New-York tribune., 1905-06-18
TRUSTS MUST SHOW BOOKS
AID TO PROSECUTIONS.
Ruling IN General Paper Company
Case WW Haze Vide 4ppkcation.

4
Milwaukee June Interpretations must sub
NIT their books in open and officers of cor
porations must answer relevant questions when
such corporations are sued by the government
under the antitrust law according 10 decision
given to-day by United States Circuit Judge Sea-
man against the General Paper Company
The General Paper Company sued by the
United States to determine whether it was
trust in restraint of trade eontended that most
of the questions asked its officers before
master in chancery by federal attorneys were
irrelevant, and refused to submit the compapys
books Judge Seaman to-day ruled that the
company must show its books TO supply possible
evidence for the prosecution and must answer
questions declared by the federal attorneys TO
be relevant.
James D. Flanders. attorney for the paper
company says the case will be taken to the
Circuit Court of Appeals. Pending an appeal
the company intends to remain firm in It's
fusals.
The governments contentious were all sus-
tanned, except that the bonds which are TO be
produced under the courts order shall not pass
out of the possession of the defendant, save in
case of pressing need. The decision, if upheld
y
bearing on future fights against alleged trusts.
In the examination before special master OBJ
jectfons as TO relevancy were made by the paper
company TO about two-thirds OF the questions
asked The paper company asserted that cen
tracts made with certain newspapers, for in
stance we're wholly irrelevant, and refused TO
divulge the terms Of such contracts. The prose
cution said these contracts were relevant since
they showed the contracts to be made solely by
and hK- =
constituent mills which furnished the paper, thus
aiding in the proof of a trusts existence. The
ohiecrion Of irreIevancy raised so frequently
that the examination almost ceased TO make
progress and the Circuit Court was asked TO
make the defence answer and produce BOOKS
showing the profits made, the expenses Of the
corporation. the manner of its organization and
similar other information. In his ruling Judge
Seaman said:
While the arguments have covered wide
range with numerous citations in point on the
various propositions. L satisfied that the
questions of privilege under the fourth ana
fifth constitutional amendments are the only
ones not plainly met by the general concensus
of authority.
1z-as raised; in fact il expressly repudiated
in AT least one instance, and the general objec-
ton of irrelevancy on the grounds granted
for refusal to answer or to produce docu-
ments
rnateriality is for consideration by the trial
court and not the examiner; and the court
from which the subpoena issues viii rarely pass
on such objections in way of supervision The
objections which are thus brought do not I'M
press me as entitled to consideration in detail
on the present application, and will be treated
as overrued on the grounds stated
Those in reference to dividends and contracts
with newspapers earnestly pressed, and If
II were unmistal1able that the inquiries We're in
no view relevant, the objections would be sus-
tanned Bat without intimatlon In any sense on
the merits of the controversy, L cannot so rule.
AS TO questions addressed the witnesses
for information within their present knowledge,
apart from the production Of records and docu-
ments am of the opinion that the only con-
stftrItional privilege which can be invoked is
nersonaI and cannot extend to the corporation
or be invoked in its behalf The fact that he is
an officer of corporation and in t:lat relation
ACQUIRED the information sought, whether conf
Dental or not, does not affect the privilege OF
witness under consideration.
The test to be applied is whether the In
nunity amnesty granted under the ACT OF
Congress In question is as broad as the privilege
granted under the Constitution AS the amnesty
Trox,ision in the act is identical with the like
I,ro1,isior, in the Interstate Commerce act / am
Constrained 10 rule that the immunity is suffi-
Gent TO remove the privilege The contention
that the provision of the Interstate Commerce
scf which makes the giving of testimony COM
T,rlsory mot appearing in the Antitrust actD.
dferentiates its construction. seems TO me with
o,,f force as that provision merely imposes the
6ut,r To testify before non-judicial tribunal.
u,bila the duty ts testify in this judicial pro-
caadino arises both at common law and under
~ General statutes. Under the decisions re-
sar-e5 10 The court is not liberty TO consider
3ba interests of witnesses constituent COR
oratta,,e BY yay OF limitation Of privilege or i'm
munity.
-