New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-03-15
MUST SHOW BOOKS
Justice Sscay@e Decides
Il gainst Packers.

The four indicted packing companies OPP
Grating under the New Jersey laws en-
countered reverse yesterday. when Justice
Swayze. of the Supreme Court. granted
the application OF Prosecutor Carven, of
Hudson County. for order compelling
the companies to submit their books to the
Hudson County Grand Jury.
Mr.. Garven went to Trenton late yester-
day TO procure the signature of Justice
Swayze to the order, as ne intends to
serve the National Packing Company.
| Swift & Co, Armour & Co and Morris &
Co. promptly. The packing companies will
probably appeal TO the Court of Errors and
Appeals to stay the Prosecutors hand.
Their contention, when the application
was argued before Justice Swayze was
that the Prosecutor failed to show a cause
pending in which the books would be re-
quired as evidence. and that the court
had no power to compel the books to be
brought within the state, except where
they might be needed in a cause in the
Supreme Court, which would make the
books subject to the control of that court.
In his opinion Justice Swayze said, in
part:
pending before grand jury, in which these
books may furnish evidence. That presents
a proper cause, and the only question is
whether ii is within the range of my au-
thOrity and whether the end to be sub
served by the production of the books is
within the judicial control. 1t is argued
control" means within the control of the
judge who makes the order. This is not
The judicial control may mean not the
control of the particular Judge but the
control of the judicaIy-the judicial depart
ment OF the government.
If so. this case clearly comes within the
language. since the case in which the books
are wanted is within the control of the
Hudson oyer and Terminer, a judicial tri-
bunal of this state.
Under the criminal procedure act of
1898 l hold the Oyer alone only in the
absence of the judge of the Common Pleas.
In its practical aspect I could control the
use of the books in the Hudson oyer, since
their production could only be enforced by
attachment for contempt. and no such at
tachment could be effective without my
assent; but it would seem to me TO SAVIOR
OF practical expectancy rather than OF
legal right TO decide SO important matter
on that ground. An examination OF the
contempt are subject to the control of the
Supreme Court
In concluding Justice Swayze said:
/ am Of opinion. therefore, that under
our practice l ought to make the order
The questions which have arisen as to the
rights of corporations under the bill Of
rights TO be protected against unreaSOn-
able searches and seizures and the priVi-
lege against Decentralization embodied
in the bill Of rights of the federal Consti-
tuition do not arise in this case. since the
prosecutor asks only for certain specified
books and it is not claimed that the pro-
duction of those books within the state
will interfere with the business operations
of these companies elsewhere.
The order will be served on the Corpo-
retions Trust Company, the registered
agents of three of the companies and on
Frederick B. Cooper, who represents Swift
& Co. The section of the corporations
act. No. "A. gives the Court of Chancery
and Supreme Court, or any justice thereof.
authority to summarily order any all
Of the books of a corporation to be brought
within the state and impounded at such
place and for such time as may be desig-
mated in the order land the charter of
any corporation failing to comply with
such order may be declared forfeited by
the court making such order"