The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1905-10-04
GENERAL PAPER
COMPANY CASE
Books and Papers Must Be Submitted
For Inspection.
WITNESSES MUST TESTIFY
OFFICIALS WILL ESCAPE NCRIM-
iNAL PROSECUTION.

at. PAUL, Oct. 3.--Judge VanDevan-
ter, in the United States district
court late this afternoon, decided
that the officers of the Hennepin
Paper company. the Itasca Paper COM
pany and the Northwest Paper COM
pany should appear before the United
States eaminer and answer such ques-
tons as might be asked of them in the
hearing of the case, of the United
States against the General Paper COM
pany and tWenty-three other defend
ants. The court also decided that the
books and papers mentioned in the
subpoena should be produced and be
submitted to the government for exam
inatiOn.
Follows Similar Decision.
The decision of today follows that of
Judge Seaman in Milwaukee, rendered
upon a similar application several
weeks ago. and from which decision
the defendants have appealed TO the
United States supreme court. Whether
an appeal win be allowed from Judge
NanDeVanter's decision is not yet Ger
tain. Attorney f. 3, Kellogg, who has
represented the government in this
case. maintains that an appeal would
not lie, because todays decision is an
interlocutory decree and not final. as
was the case in the decision rendered
by Judge Seaman. The court appoint
ed Saturday, Oct. !. as the date for
hearing arguments on this point.
No Criminal Prosecution,
Judge VanDevanter, in rendering his
decision, maintained that the statute
under which the case at bar was
brought complied with the immunity
clause Of the constitution and that the
testimony given by the officers could
not be used in their criminal prOsecu-
ton, either in the federal or state
courts. AS to its effects on their char
acter for honesty and uprightness. that
was something that the constitution
did not take notice of. The harm re-
sulting to the witness in this case, the
court stated would not be in the sense
of taking his property from him; It
would not be forfeiture. but rather
depreciation following the discovery
that he was engaged in an unlawful
business.
WtOh9 70 pc Hi91bSutH
This suit was stated to be one
brought to put an end to an act which.
If of the character charged, is a public
wrong and has been so from its in
ception. a person or corporation does
not acquire a property right, the court
stated by conceiving wrong or by
putting it into execution. or by cOntin-
uing the wrong. This rather aggra-
Yates it than makes it right, and when
the government tries to stop it by an
injunction this does not amount to a
which the defendants are lawfully en-
titled.
Immunity of Corporations.
As TO whether the corporation itself
would be immune from criminal prose-
cutiOn on evidence given by its Of
fcers. the court held that that question
was not in issue. He was inclined to
think, however. that if a corporation
was in fact "person" in the sense in
which the section of the constitution
cited contemplated, then perhaps it
would be immune. II a corporation.
that is to say could itself testify. such
testimony could not be used against
it in criminal procedure.
As to the contention that the officers
of the corporation could not be COM
PEELED to testify against the objection
of the corporation itself. Judge Van
Devanter held that as an individual
could not forbid an agent to testify
against him, neither could a corpora
ton so instruct it's officers.