The evening world. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1887-1931, 1909-01-22
PANAMA LIBEL
SUBPOENAS ARE
QUASHEDBY COURT
Judge Ward Declares Disputed
Calls to Grand Jury
Are Improper.
Continued from First Page)

which to protect himself against giving
testimony that might incriminate him.
The United States Attorney contends
that In this country the Grand Jury has
an inqusitorial power 10 investigate
Of It's own motion and that In some In
stances the utmost secrecy may be nee.
essary TO the success Of its inquiry and
that the protection OF witnesses may
safely rest on the presumption that
neither the Grand Jury nor the United
States Attorney will do anything unfair
or oppressive.
III would also contribute greatly TO
the success and celebrity Of some in
vestgations II the authorities had an
unlimited right 10 search and Sc re per-
sons, houses and papers, but the rj:dt
OF the citizens against such proceedings
Is not left TO depend upon any such pre-
sumption. He is guaranteed against UNI
reasonable searches and seizures by the
Fourth Amendment to the Constitution
So 1t would unquestionably speed the
detection and conviction Of crime to
compel suspected persons 20 testify, but
no principle OF our law is better settled
than that this cannot he done
me subpoena being the Courts writ
II is the duty OF the Court. consistent
~ with the existing statutes. to regu-
late the use Of it. It Is not a question
OF the nature Of the particular subject
now under -nsideration by the Grand
Jury, nor Of the fairness Of the pres
ent United states Attorney and his
assistants and Of the present Grand
Jury. but the question 10 to determine
the practice to be followed in this dis.
trics In all cases by all United States
Attorneys and Grand Juries, a matter
conoededly OF the utmost moment.
1T Is alleged that these general, or
John Doe, suhp0enas have been issued in
this district for many years. II so, they
seem never TO have been challenged. As
Justice Bradley pointed out in Boyd VS.,
United States. ll6 T. 5. SO long prac-
tce OF Issuing general warrants 10 ap-
prehend persons suspected OF the au-
thorship Of seditious l.bels and bring
them and their papers before the Secre-
tary OF State for examination. was re-
lied on In EmtlCk VS.. Carrington II
Howells. s.. Tr 1922 Lord Camden said
John Doe" Proceedings NuIlifed.
AS no objection was taken to them
upon the returns TO writs OF habeas
corpus and the matter passed. sub
silentio, the precedents were OF no
weight.
"A subpoena duces tecum was also
served upon Shaw as secretary and
pany. World Building II was held in
Hale vs.. Henkel 9l L, =. 49, that a
subpoena duces tecum might amount
to an unreasonable search or seizure,
within the Fourth Amendment 10 the
Constitution.
The United States Attorney consents
that Its terms In this case may be mar
roTed TO an extent which seems to
make II reasonable Still the fact re.
mains that the witness has been sub
poenaed TO testify generally and that he
Ia entitled 10 know either what person
or persons are charged by the United
states. or the subject OF the investiga-
ton
~ do not think that the incidental
reference to articles relating TO the
Panama Canal in the parAEraph of the
subpoena calling for receipts ia sutt-
ctent The motion 10 quash and set
aside the subpoena is therefore
granted"