The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-06-08
THW|NG OBJECTS
To A SUBPOENA
SAYS Breck0ns Refuses to Say
What the Case Is
About.

Technical objections to the form Of
subpoena that was served on him,
were voiced by Rev. E. w. Thwing
Yesterday in the United States District
Court, but because of the absence of
Judge Dole no action was taken on
the points that were raised by Thwing
Court was adjourned by Clerk Murphy
until June 81, when it is expected that
Judge Dole will be able to resume his
duties on the bench.
Thwing, who was called to testify
before the Federal grand jury by a
subpoena issued at the direction of R.
w. Breckons, the U. S. District Attor-
ney, made a motion to have the sub
poena quashed and declared illegal. 1t
was a protest against common prac-
tise of issuing general subpoenas in
which nothing is said rs to the nature
of the case or of the alleged offense
and no hint is given of the identity
of the complainant. The subpoena in
the case reads as follows:
Subpoena Ticket,
District of Hawaii.
To E. w. Thwing, Honolulu.
By virtue of a subpoena issued out
of the United States District Court
| you are required to be and appear be-
fore the said Court at Honolulu, at 8
| o clock a. M, ON the 7th day of June
| 1909, then and there to testify on be-
half of the United States in the case
of Investigation before the U. S. Grand
| Jury, and not to depart without leave
If you fail to obey such subpoena, you
may be fined and imprisoned, as the
Court may direct.
| E. R. HENDRY,
| u. S. Marshal.
| Per r. IRWIN,
Deputy U. S. Marshal.
The protest made to the court s sub
poena was as follows:
! 81 wish to file my protest with thi:
court against the form of subpoena is
sued to me by the direction of r. w
Breckons, y. S. District Attorney. M
indication of the case in which L an
TO give witness is given, although the
printed form of the Department of Jus
tice indicates that the name of the cast
should be given. Mr.. Breckons refuses
to give me this information.
''Judge Ward of the q. S. Circui
Court, n. Y, has decided that such 81
indefinite subpoena is illegal and void
- am ready to aid, by my testimony
any investigation before the U. S
Grand jury, yet | believe that | nav
the right to know the name of tn
special case in which | am called t.
testify for the following reasons:
Refers to Authorities.
/ 81. The decision of Judge War;
above noted supports my claim.
''2 The form provided by this cour
indicates at least general intention
that witness should be Informed o
matter in which he is called.
SO. The name of the case beins
given would enable witness to con
suit counsel and SO have his right
protected as provided in the fftl
amendment of the Constitution.
ga. While the charges and inves
LEGATION may not be public, yet tn
name or names of parties involved
| should be given to the witness, or a
least the general subject of the ease
Otherwise abuses may creep in and wit
nesses may be deprived of importan
rights and privileges provided by law
"5. 1t might contribute greatly t
some Investigations if authorities ha
/ an unlimited right to search person
and houses. But citizens are protecte'
, against any abuse of this kind. 1t /
Just as important that witnesses Shout
; also be protected in their rights.
81 make this protest not from an,
unwillingness to testify, but as mat
ter of right and principle. j"
Mr. ThW8ng also supports his protes
by the following argument, GOVERN
legal precedents and authorities:
''The subpoena being the court
writ, it is the duty of the court t
guard and direct its proper use.
cit is not question as to what ma
be the nature of this particular matte
before the grand jury, or of the fan
ness of the T. S. District Attorney, bu
it is a question of what is the RICH
b practice to be followed IN all eases b
the U. S. Attorney and the grand jury
question of grave Importance.
Even if the exact name can not b
= given, yet some definition of and linn
to the examination to which the wi
, ness may be subjected should be flu
2 nished. This was done in the subpoen
d issued out of the U. S. Circuit court {
9 New York in the case of Z. S. VS.. Kin
" ball, III F. r. 156.
"'There is strange absence of a,
thority on the subject. However,
Hale VS.. Kenkel, POI U. S. 1850, Juds
= Brown said:
Sin summoning witness it
> quite sufficient to give to the witne
y the names of the parties with respe
: to whom they will be called upon
,, testify, without mentioning the chars
l. against them
" "The language used indicates tn
the Supreme Squirt thinks that wi
\ nesses should be informed of the nam
re of the parties with respect to who
IL they are called to testify. On the 9th
hand, if name can not be given, tn,
some subject should be indicated
cit may be said that these gener;