The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-10-08
WITNESSES WILL
REFUSE ANSWERS
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS NEXT
IN PAPER TRUST CASE.
Judge Van Deyanter Decides that His
Order RECURRING Questions to Be An
swered Is Not Appe alable Agrees to
Allow Appeal, However, on Contempt
Proceedings Next Thursday.

Not appealable is the order Of the
United States court to compel officers
of the General Paper company, the
trust, to answer questions asked by the
United States and produce records de-
sired by the government before des-
ignated master. This is the ruling made
by Judge Willis Van Devanter yester-
day afternoon at st. Paul, after listen
ing to arguments Of considerable length
by attorneys for both the trust and the
federal government.
Notwith standing this, it was an
nounced in court by the attorneys for
the paper trust following the ruling,
that the General Paper company officers
would continue to decline to answer the
questions which had been asked and to
produce the records desired by the gov
eminent. This destination will take
place in the st. Paul federal district
court room next Thursday morning, and
will be Immediately followed by ar
| raignment Of the officials before Judge
Van Devanter for contempt. The court
will impose a fine at that time such as
| it deems sufficient. The defendants will
then be asked to give bond for prob
ably $1,000 to guarantee costs in the
litigation, and the case will be taken
to the United States supreme. court by
4 VIZ pdpoI COupdAy WILL oil Ou0 BpCcu
on a writ of error, one of the ASST gn-
. ments of error being the court IS proce.
/ dure Saturday in overriding the paper
company motion. d. = a55,.G% - (.@s4
! All this was agreed, upon informally
| in court Saturday afternoon between
court and attorneys for both sides, and
following the rendering from the bench
Of the courts verbal opinion in favor
Of the contention of the government,
represented by Attorney Frank B. Kel-
| The court went into discussion Of
considerable length in giving his ruling
Saturday afternoon that his order was
not appealable, in which he had ruled
the defendants must answer certain
questions asked and produce specified
records Of their business operations.
The power Of the court, said the
mony by mouth, or production Of docu:
ments, is essential to the exercise OF
!. the courts jurisdiction There goes
4 with it the power to enforce appropriate
/ measures, not only attendance of wit
nesses, but the giving Of answers; the
power, too, to enforce the production
Of documents which illustrate the truth
Of the questions of litigation. No stat
ute is required for the courts author
ity to adopt measures to enforce these
conditions. This authority, is inherent
in the court. IF the witnesses claim ex
emption under the rules Of privileged
communicat ions, the question may b<
presented to the court. In the ordinary
course, the parties would be heard, ant
the court would express it's view; ane
! excuse the witness or order answers tt
be given or the documents produced. :
IF the witness refuses, the natura
course would be to take such steps a!
are appropriate to get the desired tes
7 timony thru contempt proceedings. Til
!! that time, witness would, have no sepa
rate rights Of his own. But at the mo
!, ment when it is proposed to visit or
the witness a consequence persona. +, tc
courts order, would arise his separate
right to be heard. He, would then ,be
entitled to hearing TO- say that BIZ
! was not amenable to punishment. 5anc
had acted in lawful right. The judg
. ment in thus constituted case would
be that whereby he, would be excused
or adiudged in contempt. AS to, sucl
|, which does not Judge his status. Th'
fact that the proceedings in the pres
ent case grow out of the taking o:
testimony. before a. master, does no
vary the point.
The court doubted if it is ever tru'
that witness is heard before his sub
poena is issued. He must obey or no
at his peril.
Here, while it is said the witnesse
refuse obedience to process it is no
asked that they be adiudged in con
.. tempt in the first instance. but tina
> they have a. hearing on their rights
lSueh hearing has been had. Direction
anew to the defendants to answer cues
lions and produce records is asked b,
the government as a litigant, and no
, as a sovereign power seeking to en-
i force it's dignity and authority; yet. !
. is a. part Of the proceeding in whic]
i contempt may proceed.
The court was very pronounced Il
3 its opinion that the mere direction O
e Judge to a witness to answer ques
lions is not a final decision, merely
e part Of the original proceeding, an
!. only On it's hearing is a new case made
Since the attitude Of the government
lis not one Of asking for punishment 70
contempt, there shall be some httl
o latitude Of time allowed following thi
order to answer the questions and pro
duce the records. On refusal, the gov
Y eminent is authorized to report the de
e PENDANTS to the court for punishment
}. for contempt and for the court t
t coerce them into obedience. -.
o HIn my OPINION concluded tn
court, ga review is not to be had froI
: my Judgment, by writ OF error. = I
: AFTER BIG GAME
n "Bob'' McMullen and Party Depar