New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-14
NO IMMUNITY FOR CORPORATIONS.

The decision of the Supreme Court just handed
down in the Tobacco Trust case (Hale vs.
Henke) is an important and, we might almost
say epoch making definition of the limits of
corporate power. 1t confirms to the government
the authority to compel the production of evil
dence without which the enforcement of anti
trust laws would be practically impossible The
convincing and far reaching opinion Of Justice
Brown on the relation of corporations to the
law by favor of which they exist is one of the
most important of the many public services Of
that distinguished jurist who is so soon to
retire.
The case arose from the refusal of the tobacco
company officials TO produce their books before
a grand jury on the ground that the evidence in
them might tend to incriminate the corporation
The Antitrust law provided that witnesses
should not be excused from testifying on the
ground that they would incriminate themselves
by extending to them personal immunity from
prosecution for offences so revealed. 1t was
urged, however that this immunity did not ex-
tend TO the corporation itself, and that If its
officers, though enjoying personal immunity,
could be forced to testify TO illegal corporate
transactions or produce corporation books show
ing such transactions, the practice would amount
to forcing the corporation TO be a witness
against itself This is admitted by the court,
which thus is fairly led TO the conclusion that a
corporation has not in this respect the constitu-
tiOnal rights Of a natural person, and that
corporations transactions are, under reasonable
regulations subject TO the inspection Of the
state to determine if it is obeying the rule under
which alone it is authorized to do business. Re-
plying to the contention that the law gives the
corporation no immunity against testimony
forced from itself, Justice Brown says:
This is true, but the answer is that It was not
designed 10 do The right of a person under
the Fifth Amendment to refuse to incriminate
himself is purely personal privilege or the
witness. It was never intended to permit him
to plead the fact that some other person
might be incriminated by his testimony even
though he were the agent of such person.
If he cannot set up the privilege of a third per-
son. he certainly cannot set up the privilege Of a
corporation. AS the combinations conspira-
cies provided against by the Sherman Anti
Trust act ordinarily be proved only by the
testimony of parties thereto, in the person Of
their agents or employees, the privilege claimed
would practically Invalidate the whole act OF
Congress- The defence amounts to this
That an officer of a corporation which is charged
with criminal violation of the statute may plead
the criminality OF such corporations a refusal
to produce its books. To state this proposition
is to answer il.
Justice Brown then proceeds TO show as fol-
lows-what corporation managers so often for
get-the radical difference between persons and
corporations
The individual. may carry his private bust
ness in his own way. His power TO contract is
unlimited he owes no duty TO the state or to
his neighbors 70 divulge his business or to open
his doors to investigation, far as it may
tend TO criminate him. On the other hand, the
corporation is creature of the state 1t is pre-
sumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the
public 1t receives certain special privileges and
franchises and holds them subject to the laws of
the state and the limitations of its charter. It's
rights 10 act a corporation are only preserved
to it so long as ii obeys the laws of it's creation
In his opinion in the Paper Trust cases, deliy
cred at the same time, Justice McKenna rejects
another contention OF the corporation LAWYERS
and refuses to tolerate the legerdemain by which
men under subpoena assert dual personality
as individuals and corporation officers. He holds
that corporation do nothing except
through individuals; that their acts are its acts
and that the law can direct its process TO them
| rather than to THE intangible being they repre-
| sent These decisions are safeguarded from
abuse by n declaration against unreasonable
searches and seizures, but they clear away the
obstacles which the corporations have set I'D
/ between themselves and the processes OF the
law.
While a certain amount of demagogy and
passion must mar any progressive movement
public feeling is In the main directed not against
corporations, but against the abuses OF irrespon-
, slble corporate power. The rights OF assoca-
ton and business immortality are essential to
great enterprises. The law, in comforting these
privileges, guards them strictly. The corporation
mas no natural rights and 10 it should be con-
ceded no implied powers. Individual accumula-
ton of wealth is limited TO a working lifetime
! The individuals power is restrained by a DER
sonal responsibility 10 law. The corporation
going on from generation to generation has an
Immense advantage In competition. If also it
can claim all personal immunites while avoid