New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1909-01-23
NO CANAL SUIT APPEAL
SUBPOENA RULE STANDS.
Grand Jury Minutes Sad to Haze
Been Sent to Washington

United States Attorney stirnson will not appeal
from Judge Wards decision, rendered yes'eroHs'
granting the motion counsel for the Press fuO
1,.t,r T>-,,snv 70 ouash the subpenas first issued
IN the investigation CT the Panama Lanai cnAlke
sy the special grand Jury here he sara &c OD
sf6e-sd the question an academic one PuIes
sno,,as there be repetition, however. there VIII Dc
an arresl 10 the United States Supreme court
The decision VIII affect the investigator mere
as ali outstanding suepEnss have oeeh c-A-s0 -
NEST the objections 10 the first foTIn-
Although the grand jury was not IN sess'oN
Yesterday :; vas an unusually busy day for the
United States Attorney ana his assistants mere
we're rnsny visitors among them Braoloro 1neffni'
treasurer OF Star Publishing Company puu
u.hs- ~ The American 1t has been generally
,,,5e-x,ors that the story regarding The Panama
Carss sale and the alleged subsequent olspoSlIOn
sf the purchase money was offered TO me amer
can" ana that that paper refused 70 puonsh IL
Il was believed that Mr.. Merrill woulo DC SUI
pcsnaed 10 tell who offered the story 10 Inc -ANie1
lear" II,
Douglas Robinson. who figured IN the neEot.a
,tnns for she sale of the canal and Was before the
GRAND fury 81 Washington. was in the Feoerai
Ruiasns late yesterday, but did not cali on Mr
s.rnson II was said yesterday that the minutes ot
the grand jury here were sent 10 hashlhstoi4' 60
mat the testimony would be compared WIN '.1
taken IN Washington II was also salo that a.
o-,.,. General Isonaparte would not hand out his
statement Of the governments purpose until the
testimony had been compared ana pan VI 00'iO
decided upon. -,-
80, s-,onx LAWYERS Some said that If applied 10
ali subpenas il would make John Doe proceeoines
Impossible. Mr. NiccIl thought so. ana ne Saiu
e,,y7t,er that II vas most comprehensive uphoio-
~ of l,s rosition 4 similar form CT subpoena was
go :, the Morse Curtis. Heinze and Price cases
and for years been the practice 70 issue 'IS
tfnd in cases where the government Vlsheo 10 pre-
serve reasonable degree Of secrecy ny ettiils'
50 his argument when the motion 10 ouash INC
.-.--o.,a. was made on Monday. said that IL heo
beer the custom issue tie form OF suopfIa oO
s.c.ed 10 for the last fifty years. In explanation "
said: ,.,,,. -
Gases often arise in which II is Impossible 10
al zho .hs offender is until after the grand 1uF}
iroIiry Such cases often concern great corpora
.saus and II is impossible to find lhe suA'E oie
until after extended inquiry -,
Judge Ward, In the opening OF his opinloh' WHICH
.ook ~, che subpoena issued TO w P AclouehHh'
manager Of the sporting department u 10
World" said that the words TO give eVloehce .
certain cause now depending in the said court De
.v,een ire United States of America hao Deeh
..-,,cx MT If the printed form and the ~oro gen
e~sIz' substituted, thus emitting the ha"ie "
names of the defendants The form OF suOpHna y
A nse6 in the federal courts was not prescribed %
Law he said, but the form used in the oiSlIict
z.s-era the court was sitting indicated at least
general intention that witness should De lnIorin
~ the case about which he would De Calieu IL
testify Judge Ward said that he though' II was
r-o-er that this should be the case. 1Ee oeClsloh
continued:
The Fifth Amendment 10 the Constitution pr9ovloes
THAT shall be conIei,ed IN any The Supreme
Court has construed this provision lareey not i.
tbe witness himself but extends TO any criminal
Investigation CCounselnaan vs. HlIchcocA' IL -
II IS quite clear that the ordinary citizen called
g gPon 70 ia ns' Room uIdeT he e the
United states attorney Elh ne eai ma ti'ey are
lie ought have an opportunity 10 cpnsur ig61 n
f,,es "a testify and Of the way in which 10 protect
himself against giving testimony ihat might III
eliminate him
The arguments Of Mr. stimson asserting that II
z,,ld unouestionably speed the detection and con-
xfcrsor OF crime compel suspected persons TO fes
fif before the grand jury were reciteo out Juose
ward said that principle Of the law had been
better settled than this. IT was the duty OF 'he
fs,;r he said consistent with the existing statutes
70 regulate the use of subpGnas. It was not a
question Of the subject now under investigation
Tor or the fairness of the present United States
Attorney. but it determine the practice TO
he followed in this district in all cases by ell
United States attorneys and grand jurieS
When a grand jury cannot name some person
regarding whom investigation is being made
sach an inquiry need not be abandoned II the SUD
ran. must give names. the Court says, answering
an objection made by Mr. Stimson The subject
T,;6Te Ward said could be stated and some limita-
ton fixed for she examination He said that there
was strange absence Of authority, but that Jus
,tea Brown in Hale ast Henkel. POI L s. IS, S..
had held that in summoning witnesses IT was sut1-
cisnt 70 spprise them OF the Of persons with
,ffv without indicating the nature OF the charges
against them. Judge Ward then said:
This language indicates that the Supreme Court
thinks that witnesses should be informed in the
of Of the parties with respect
10 whom they wis be called TO testify, although II
holds N not to disclose the charge
br4ush. against those persons II must be remem-
hereG that Justice Brown was discussing the de-
Trand Of a witness who had been subpRnaed 10
testify in q case against named persons TO know
ihe srecifc charge made. II is quite in line with
view witness cannot be apprised Of
me name of person 50 charged he should be In
formed Of tic subject about which he Will be
called upon testify
Tae argument that the general John Doe sub
ucsnss have been issued for years Judge Ward dis
roses Of BY quoting Lord Camden. who held that
as rrecedents lack Of objection had weight. In
closing he said:
The fact remains that the witness has been called
,lo 10 testify generally and that he is entitled