Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/93007/blair-vs-united-states
Timestamp: 2017-06-22 16:18:41
Document Index: 311232218

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 12', '§ 30', '§ 861', '§ 6', '§ 876', '§ 877', '§ 3']

Blair Vs United States - Citation 93007 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize Blair Vs. United States - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/93007CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnJun-02-1919Case Number250 U.S. 273AppellantBlairRespondentUnited StatesExcerpt:.....him to raise the question. p.
250 u. s. 278
that witnesses subpoenaed in a grand jury investigation of possible violations of the corrupt practices act of june 25, 1910, as amended, and of possible perjury in connection therewith, had no standing to question the power of congress, under art. i, § 4, of the constitution, to enact provisions for regulation and control of primary elections of candidates for the office of united states senator. p.
grand jury has a broad power of investigation and inquisition; the scope of its inquiries is not to be narrowly limited by questions of propriety or forecasts of probable results; the examination of..... Judgment:
Blair v. United States - 250 U.S. 273 (1919)
It is the duty of this court to refrain from passing upon the constitutionality of an act of Congress when the interests of the party attacking it do not entitle him to raise the question. P.
grand jury has a broad power of investigation and inquisition; the scope of its inquiries is not to be narrowly limited by questions of propriety or forecasts of probable results; the examination of witnesses need not be preceded by a formal charge against a particular individual, and witnesses, duly subpoenaed, must attend and answer the questions propounded in the inquiry, subject to the right to be protected from self-incrimination, and excluding matters specially privileged by law. P.
A witness summoned to give testimony before a grand jury in the District Court is not entitled to refuse to answer, when ordered by the court, upon the ground that the court and jury are without jurisdiction over the supposed offense under investigation. P.
Upon the coming in of the presentment, the witnesses appeared in person and by counsel in opposition to the petition of the grand jury, and contended that the Corrupt Practices Act as amended was unconstitutional and void, referring to the opinion of this court in
243 U. S. 487
. A hearing was had which
The same constitutional question was stirred in
, but its determination was unnecessary for the decision of the case, and for this reason it was left undetermined, as the opinion states. Considerations of propriety, as well as long-established practice, demand that we refrain from passing upon the constitutionality of an act of Congress unless obliged to do so in the proper performance of our judicial function, when the question is raised by a party whose interests entitle him to raise it.
Long before the separation of the American Colonies from the mother country, compulsion of witnesses to appear and testify had become established in England. By Act of 5 Eliz., c. 9, § 12 (1562), provision was made for the service of process out of any court of record requiring the person served to testify concerning any cause or matter pending in the court, under a penalty of ten pounds besides damages to be recovered by the party aggrieved.
See Havithbury v. Harvey,
Cro.Eliz. 130; 1 Leon. 122;
Goodwin (or Goodman) v. West,
Cro.Car. 522, 540; March, 18. When it was that grand juries first resorted to compulsory process for witnesses is not clear. But as early as 1612, in the Countess of Shrewsbury's case, Lord Bacon is reported to have declared that
At the foundation of our Federal Government the inquisitorial function of the grand jury and the compulsion of witnesses were recognized as incidents of the judicial power of the United States. By the Fifth Amendment, a presentment or indictment by grand jury was made essential to hold one to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, and it was declared that no person should be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself; while, by the Sixth Amendment, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused was given the right to a speedy and public trial, with compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. By the first Judiciary Act (September 24, 1789, c. 20, § 30, 1 Stat. 73, 88), the mode of proof by examination of witnesses in the courts of the United States was regulated, and their duty to appear and testify was recognized. These provisions, as modified by subsequent legislation, are found in §§ 861-865, Rev.Stats. By Act of March 2, 1793, c. 22, § 6, 1 Stat. 333, 335, it was enacted that subpoenas for witnesses required to attend a court of the United States in any district might run into any other district, with a proviso limiting the effect of this in civil causes so that witnesses living outside of the district in which the court was held need not attend beyond a limited distance from the place of their residence.
§ 876, Rev.Stats. By § 877, originating in Act of February 26, 1853, c. 80, § 3, 10 Stat. 161, 169, witnesses required to attend any term of the district court on the part of the United States may be subpoenaed to attend to testify
In all of these provisions, as in the general law upon the subject, it is clearly recognized that the giving of testimony and the attendance upon court or grand jury in order to testify are public duties which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform upon being properly summoned, and for performance of which he is entitled to no further compensation than that which the statutes provide. The personal sacrifice involved is a part of the necessary contribution of the individual to the welfare of the public. The duty, so onerous at times, yet so necessary to the administration of justice according to the forms and modes established in our system of government (
221 U. S. 372
, quoting Lord Ellenborough), is subject to mitigation in exceptional circumstances; there is a constitutional exemption from being compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself, entitling the witness to be excused from answering anything that will tend to incriminate him (
); some confidential matters are shielded from considerations of policy, and perhaps in other cases for special reasons a witness may be excused from telling all that he knows.
On familiar principles, he is not entitled to challenge the authority of the court or of the grand jury, provided they have a
existence and organization.
He is not entitled to set limits to the investigation that the grand jury may conduct. The Fifth Amendment and the statutes relative to the organization of grand juries recognize such a jury as being possessed of the same powers that pertained to its British prototype, and, in our system, examination of witnesses by a grand jury need not be preceded by a formal charge against a particular individual.
. It is a grand inquest, a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation, or by doubts whether any particular individual will be found properly subject to an accusation of crime. As has been said before, the identity of the offender, and the precise nature of the offense, if there be one, normally are developed at the conclusion of the grand jury's labors, not at the beginning.
Hendricks v. United States,
223 U. S. 178
223 U. S. 184