Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-03-31

spouse to subpoena or order
authorized by law and Safeguarded
by judicial sanction, seems to be
that the Fifth Amendment affords
no protection by virtue of the SELF
denomination provision whether
Tor the corporation or its officers.
and the Fourth, if applicable. at
most guards against abuse only by
way of too much indefiniteness or
breadth in the things required to
be particularly described'-if also
the inquiry is one the demanding
agency is authorized by law to make
and the materials specified are
relevant"
In short. company records are
not protected by either amendment
II ID the investigation being made
is lawful, (2) the data requested is
specific. and go the records are
relevant to the inquiry.
Whot About lucriminotion?
What about cases where individ-
uals have in their possession rec
ords belonging to organizations for
which they work but which. if pro-
duced. might tend to incriminate
them?
This point came before the Su-
preme Court, in regard to corpora
ton records, once in 1911 and twice
in 1918. In each case it was held
that the projections of the Fourth
and Fifth Amendments were not
applicable.
1t arose for the first time in a la
Dor case during World War II when
a building trades union employed in
the construction of the naval sup
ply depot at Mechanicsburg, Pa.
was charged with certain irregulari-
ties.
An official of the union, local of
the international Union of Operat-
ing Engineers. refused to give up
records in his possession, invoking
the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
He argued that the union was not
incorporated and that he was not
the official custodian of union rec
ords. but just happened to have
some in his possession.
He got nowhere with this argu-
ment.
In deciding the case, United
States Us. White in 1914, the SUI
preme Court said this:
THE paper and effects which
the privilege protects must be the
private property OF the person
claiming the privilege. or at least
in his possession in a purely per-
sonal capacity
Emphasis might be given to that
phrase. purely personal"
What Is Personnel?
In none of the cases did the
Supreme Court undertake to spell
out in detail just what is a purely
personal" capacity. And this, OF
course, is critical point so far as
Mr.. Beck is concerned.
However, the Court did say in
the White case that II the records
in question are, or according to
union regulations ought to be, open
to inspection by members of the
organization--they are not personal
records. They are not then pro-
tected by the Fifth Amendment and
are subject only to the test of the
"reasonablenesS" Of the demand for
them under the Fourth.
The Court added another COM
ment in the White case which may
be significant in view Of the impli-
cation made by Mr.. Beck at one
point in last weeks hearing that
Others" might be involved II he
turned over his records.
The Court pointed out that
Fourth and Fifth Amendment pro-
tections cannot be invoked on be-
half Of third parties A labor
union official, 1t said, has no right
under those Amendments to refuse
to produce records OF the union on
grounds that they might tend 10
incriminate the union or himself
or any officer thereof.
incidentally, both the White and
the Oklahoma Press cases were re-
affirmed by the Supreme Court in
the so-called Morton Salt case of
l949.
Just how Mr. Beck may be af-
fected by the state OF the law as
outlined in the foregoing, would
be difficult to forecast But prece-
dent suggests that If the Team
ster's boss is still worried, he may
have right to be. !