Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1906-03-15
THEY MUST TESTIFY.
Sweeping Decision Of Supreme Court
In ''TObacco Trust" Case.
IMMUNITY NOT FOR CORPORATIONS.
Agents and Employees Cannot Claim
Exemption When Corporate Body
Alone Ii Affected, Nor TO Save
Personal Reputation.

Washington, March 13.-The "Tobac-
co trust" cases involving the right Of
witnesses to refrain from testifying
before federal grand juries in pro-
ceedings under the antitrust law
were Monday decided by the supreme
court of the United States against the
witnesses. The cases. grew out OF pro-
ceedings for writs Of habeas corpus
instituted in the circuit court for the
southern district of New York whose
decision was affirmed. The court held,
however, that the subpoena In this
case was too broad,
In his opinion in the Hale case JUS
tice Brown said the cases raised two
issues over different provisions OF the
constitution, the first involving the I'M
munity Of the witnesses from oral ex-
animation, and the second the legality
Of his action In refusing to produce
the documents called for by the sub
pena duces tecum.
Taking up the first division Of the
case the justice referred to the plea
for immunity on the, ground first, that
no specific charge was pending before
the grand jury and, second, that the
answers would tend to incriminate him
and with reference to the plea Of mo
charge" said, after citing authorities:
eve deem 1t entirely clear that un-
der the practice in this country at least
the examination Of witnesses need not
be preceded by an Indictment of pre-
sentiment formally drawn up, but that
the grand jury may proceed either
upon their own knowledge or upon the
examination of witnesses to inquire
for themselves whether crime cogniz-
able by the court has been committed;
that the result Of their investigation
may be subsequently embodied in an
indictment and in that In summoning
witnesses It is quite sufilcient to ap-
prise them of the names Of the parties
with respect to whom they will be call
cd to testify without indicating the
nature Of the charge against them"
On the point Of immunity because Of
q tendency to Standardization the
opinion expressed the view that an In
Quiry by grand jury is proceeding"
under the witness immunity act Of 1908
and added that 1T is not declared that
q witness may not be compelled to tes-
tify to facts which may impair his
reputation for problty or even tend to
Disgrace him but the line is drawn at
testimony that may expose him to
prosecution"
He added: IF the constitution were
unaffected by the immunity statute II
would put It within the power of the
witness to be his own Judge as to what
would tend to incriminate him and
would justify him in refusing to an
swer almost any question In criminal
case unless It clearly appeared that
the immunity was not set up in good
faith"
The justice admitted that the i'm
statute may protect individ-
uals, but added that It was not in
tended to serve that office for corpor-
atoms. "The question whether a cor
poration Is person, within the mean
ing Of this law. really does not arise
except perhaps where a corporation is
called upon to answer a bill OF discov-
cry As the COM
bination of conspiracies provided
against by the Sherman antitrust act
can ordinarily be proved only by the
testimony Of parties thereto, In the
person Of their agents or employees the
privilege claimed would practically
nuInfy the whole act Of congress"
The second objection was consld-
cred IN its relations to the fourth
amendment to the constitution and IL
was held that It was competent 70 10
quire the attendance and testimony Of
witnesses and he production Of books,
papers. etc, relating 70 he matter
undar iaoniry. Justice Brown said: