Source: https://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/221/361/case.php
Timestamp: 2020-04-08 11:21:32
Document Index: 264865182

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5440', '§ 1894', '§ 877', '§ 829', '§ 1033', '§ 5', '§ 2', '§ 2259']

WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U. S. 361 (1911)
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 221 > WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U. S. 361 (1911)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 221 U. S. 361
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, followed to effect that a witness properly subpoenaed cannot refuse to answer questions propounded by the grand jury on the ground that there is no cause or specific charge pending.
A corporation is under a duty to produce records, books, and papers in its possession when they may be properly required in the administration of justice. chanrobles.com-red
Under the visitatorial power of the State, and the authority of Congress over corporate activities within the domain subject to Congress, a corporation must submit its books and papers whenever properly required so to do, and cannot resist on the ground of self-incrimination, even if the inquiry may be to detect and prevent violations of law. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 201 U. S. 74.
Notwithstanding English views as to the extent of protection against self-incrimination the duties of corporations and officers thereof are to be determined by our laws. chanrobles.com-red
The facts, which involve the validity of a subpoena duces tecum issued to a corporation, and the right of an officer thereof to refuse to produce the documents required by such subpoena on the ground that they tended to incriminate him, are stated in the opinion. chanrobles.com-red
These three cases involve the same question. The first is a writ of error to the Circuit Court to review a judgment committing the plaintiff in error for contempt. The second is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court dismissing a writ of habeas corpus sued out after such commitment. chanrobles.com-red
The circumstances were these: the grand jury empaneled in the Circuit Court for some time had been inquiring into alleged violations of §§ 5440 and 5480 of the United States Revised Statutes by Wilson and others. Wilson was the president of the United Wireless Telegraph Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Maine. On August 3, 1910, the grand jury found two indictments against him and certain officers, directors and stockholders of this corporation, the one charging fraudulent use of the mails and the other a conspiracy for such use. The grand jury continued its investigations, and, on October 7, 1910, a subpoena duces tecum was issued (set forth in the margin *), which was directed to the chanrobles.com-red
Wilson then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the commitment was illegal for the reason (1) that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain chanrobles.com-red
Later, on October 28, 1910, another subpoena duces tecum was issued in the same form, addressed to the United Wireless Telegraph Company, and calling for the same books. It was served on the appellant Wilson and also on the secretary and five directors of the company. On the return day, they appeared before the grand jury, chanrobles.com-red
We may first consider the objections to the validity of the subpoena and then the claim of privilege. chanrobles.com-red
The objections to the jurisdiction on the ground that there was no "cause" or "specific charge" pending before the grand jury were made and answered in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, and require no further examination.
Where the subpoena duces tecum contains the usual ad testificandum clause, still it is not necessary for the party requiring the production to have the person producing the documents sworn as a witness. They may be proved by others. 3 Wigmore on Evidence, §§ 1894, 2200; Davis v. Dale, M. & M. 514; Summers v. Moseley, 2 Cr. & M. 477; Rush v. Smith, 1 C. M. & R. 94; Perry v. Gibson, 1 A. & E. 48; Martin v. Williams, 18 Alabama, 190; Treasurer v. Moore, 3 Brev. (S.Car.), 550; chanrobles.com-red
Where the documents of a corporation are sought, the practice has been to subpoena the officer who has them in his custody. But there would seem to be no reason why the subpoena duces tecum should not be directed to the corporation itself. Corporate existence implies amenability to legal process. The corporation may be sued; it may be compelled by mandamus, and restrained by injunction, directed to it. Possessing the privileges of a legal entity, and having records, books and papers, it is under chanrobles.com-red
There is no merit in the appellant's contention with respect to the application of § 877 of the United States Revised Statutes. The provision of the section that witnesses required on the part of the United States shall be subpoenaed "to attend to testify generally on their behalf, and not to depart the court without leave thereof, or of the district attorney," is in the interest of convenient and economical administration, and has no bearing upon the questions here involved. It is said that, under the form of writ used in this case, the defendant in the prosecution which might follow an indictment by the grand jury would not be apprised of the name of the precise witness who might have appeared against him, and § 829 of the Revised Statutes and the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution are invoked. The contention ignores the fact that the writ calls for books, and not for oral testimony; and, aside from this, neither the constitutional provision nor the statute accords the right to be apprised of the names of the witnesses who appeared before the grand jury. Even in cases of treason and other capital offenses, under § 1033 of the Revised Statutes, the required list of witnesses is only of those who are to be produced on the trial. Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263, 144 U. S. 304; United States v. Curtis, 4 Mason 232; Balliet v. United States, 129 Fed.Rep. 692.
Nor was the process invalid under the Fourth Amendment. The rule laid down in the case of Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, is not applicable here. In that case, an information for the forfeiture of goods under the Customs Act of June 22, 1874, c. 391, 18 Stat. 187, it was held that the enforced production "of the private books and papers" of the owner of the goods sought to be forfeited, under the provisions of § 5 of that act, was "compelling him to be a witness against himself within the chanrobles.com-red
meaning of the Fifth Amendment," and was also "the equivalent of a search and seizure -- and an unreasonable search and seizure -- within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." But there is no unreasonable search and seizure when a writ, suitably specific and properly limited in its scope, calls for the production of documents which, as against their lawful owner to whom the writ is directed, the party procuring its issuance is entitled to have produced. In the present case, the process was definite and reasonable in its requirements, and it was not open to the objection made in Hale v. Henkel, supra, (pp. 201 U. S. 76, 201 U. S. 77). Addressed to the corporation, and designed to enforce its duty, no ground appears upon which the corporation could have resisted the writ. And the corporation made no objection of any sort. The appellant did not attempt to assert any right on its part; his conduct was in antagonism to the corporation, so far as its attitude is shown. A majority of the directors, not including the appellant, appeared before the court and urged their solicitude to comply with the writ. They presented their formal action, taken at a meeting of the board, in which they demanded of the appellant the delivery of the books for production before the grand jury.
Concluding, then, that the subpoena was valid and that its service imposed upon the corporation the duty of obedience, there can be no doubt that the appellant was likewise bound by it unless, with respect to the books described, he could claim a personal privilege. A command to the corporation is, in effect, a command to those who are officially responsible for the conduct of its affairs. If they, apprised of the writ directed to the corporation, prevent compliance or fail to take appropriate action within their power for the performance of the corporate duty, they, no less than the corporation itself, are guilty of disobedience, and may be punished for contempt. The applicable principle was thus stated by Chief Justice chanrobles.com-red
Waite in Commissioners v. Sellew, 99 U. S. 624, 99 U. S. 627, where a peremptory mandamus was directed against a municipal board:
See also Leavenworth v. Kinney, 154 U. S. 642; People v. Sturtevant, 9 N.Y. 277.
The appellant asserts his privilege against self-crimination. There is no question, of course, of oral testimony, for he was not required to give any. Undoubtedly it also protected him against the compulsory production of his private books and papers. Boyd v. United States, supra; Bollman v. Fain, 200 U. S. 195. But did it extend to the corporate books?
For there can be no question of the character of the books here called for. They were described in the subpoena as the books of the corporation, and it was the books so defined which, admitting possession, he withheld. The copies of letters written by the president of the corporation in the course of its transactions were as much a part of its documentary property, subject to its control and to its duty to produce when lawfully required in judicial proceedings, as its ledgers and minute books. It was said in the appellant's statement before the grand jury that the books contained copies of his "personal chanrobles.com-red
It is at once apparent that the mere fact that the appellant himself wrote, or signed, the official letters copied into the books neither conditioned nor enlarged his privilege. Where one's private documents would tend to incriminate him, the privilege exists although they were actually written by another person. And where an officer of a corporation has possession of corporate records which disclose his crime, there is no ground upon which it can be said that he will be forced to produce them if the entries were made by another, but may withhold them if the entries were made by himself. The books are no more his private books in the latter case than in the former; if they have been held pursuant to the authority of the corporation, that authority is subject to termination. In both cases, production tends to criminate, and if requiring him to produce compels him to be a witness against himself in the one case, it does so equally in the chanrobles.com-red
other. There are other facts which serve to sharpen the claim of privilege, but are not determinative. Thus, there were two indictments pending against he appellant, and the inquiry before the grand jury was also directed against him. If, however, the privilege existed with respect to these books in his hands, it would have been likewise available had there been no prior indictments and had the immediate investigation concerned violations of law by others. The privilege holds although the pursuit of the person required to produce has not yet begun; it is the incriminating tendency of the disclosure, and not the pendency of the prosecution against the witness, upon which the right depends. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 562, 142 U. S. 563.
That is, the power of the courts to require their production depends not upon their character as corporate books and the duty of the corporation to submit them to examination, but upon the particular custody in which they may be found. If they are in the actual custody of an officer whose criminal conduct they would disclose, then, as this argument would have it, his possession must be deemed inviolable, and, maintaining the absolute control which alone will insure protection from their being used against him in a criminal proceeding, he may defy the authority of the corporation whose officer or fiduciary he is and assert against the visitatorial power of the State, and the authority of the Government in enforcing its laws, an impassable barrier. chanrobles.com-red
There are abundant illustrations in the decisions. Thus, in Bradshaw v. Murphy, 7 C. & P. 612, it was held that a vestry clerk who was called as a witness could not, on the ground that it might incriminate himself, object to the production of the vestry books kept under the statute, 58 George III, chapter 69, § 2. In State v. Farnum, 73 S.Car. 165, it appeared that a legislative committee had been appointed to investigate the affairs of the State Dispensary, and it was provided that it should have access to chanrobles.com-red
The fundamental ground of decision in this class of chanrobles.com-red
This view, and the reasons which support it, have so chanrobles.com-red
recently been stated by this court in the case of Hale v. Henkel, supra, that it is unnecessary to do more than to refer to what was there said (pp. 201 U. S. 74, 201 U. S. 75):
See also Consolidated Rendering Co. v. Vermont, 207 U. S. 541; Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U. S. 322, pp. 212 U. S. 348, 212 U. S. 349.
The appellant held the corporate books subject to the corporate duty. If the corporation were guilty of misconduct, he could not withhold its books to save it, and if he were implicated in the violations of law, he could not withhold the books to protect himself from the effect of their disclosures. The reserved power of visitation would seriously be embarrassed, if not wholly defeated in chanrobles.com-red
We have not overlooked the early English decisions to chanrobles.com-red
which our attention has been called (Rex v. Purnell, 1 W.Bl. 37; Rex v. Granatelli, 7 State Tr. N.S. 979; see also Rex v. Cornelius, 2 Stra. 1210), but these cannot be deemed controlling. The corporate duty, and the relation of the appellant as the officer of the corporation to its discharge, are to be determined by our laws. Nothing more is demanded than that the appellant should perform the obligations pertaining to his custody and should produce the books which he holds in his official capacity in accordance with the requirements of the subpoena. None of his personal papers are subject to inspection under the writ, and his action, in refusing to permit the examination of the corporate books demanded fully warranted his commitment for contempt.
The facts are stated in the opinion, but they are not all of equal significance, indeed, may confuse unless distinguished. I put to one side, therefore, all consideration of the process by which the letter-press books were brought into court or before the grand jury. They were taken there, of course, in deference -- in submission, it may be better to say -- to the command of the law expressed in the subpoena. chanrobles.com-red
Resistance to that was not offered by Wilson, nor was it necessary. Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616. His constitutional right was asserted afterwards. With Wilson then and the books in his possession, we have to deal and the rights he had in such situation, and let us keep in mind that it was his guilt under the law that was under investigation, and which the books were sought for the purpose of exposing. Three indictments had already been found against him. Crime, therefore, had been formally charged, and further crime was being investigated -- not crime by the corporation, but crime by him, and the proof, it was supposed, lay in the books. They were sought for no other reason. They were demanded of him to convict him. To the demand, he answered that the Constitution of his country protected him from producing evidence against himself. And he was certainly asked to produce such evidence. The books were in his possession in an assertion of right over them against everybody. In the transactions they recorded, he was a participant, and, it may be, the only doer. It is made something of in the opinion that the corporation was willing to have the books surrendered. The more unmistakable, therefore, was the claim of Wilson a personal privilege. And let it be kept in mind that it was his own privilege that he claimed, not that of the corporation, and I pass by as irrelevant a consideration of what disclosures could have been required of it, even if it had been accused of crime and there had been pending an inquiry against it.
Upon what ground was the privilege denied? Upon the ground that the books were not his property, but that of the corporation, and they are assimilated in the opinion to public documents, a consideration I pass for the present. How far, as affecting the privilege, is the rule of the title to property to be carried? Every rule may be tested by what can be done under it. Whenever a privilege is claimed against the production of books, or, of course, other chanrobles.com-red
In Rex v. Cornelius, 2 Strange, 1210, an information was granted against the defendants, who were justices of the peace, for taking money for granting licenses to alehouse keepers. A rule was applied for to inspect the books of the corporation. It was refused on the ground that it would, in effect, oblige a defendant indicted for misdemeanor to furnish evidence against himself. chanrobles.com-red
The rule was refused, the court saying: "We know no instance wherein this court has granted a rule to inspect books in a criminal prosecution nakedly considered." The corporations in those cases were considered as private, as observed by Wigmore on Evidence, notes to § 2259. For the same reason, in Rex v. Worsenham, 1 Ld.Raym. 705, the production of custom-house books in an information against custom-house officers for forging a custom-house bond were not compelled. And in Regina v. Mead, 2 Ld.Raym. 927, books of the defendant who, with eight others, were incorporated as highway surveyors, being considered of a private nature, were not required to be produced. Such corporations would, no doubt, be regarded today as public, as observed by Wigmore, and he cites cases in which certain records were deemed public, as follows: in a libel suit, a parish vestry book required by statute to be kept; registered pharmacist's reports filed as required by law; in a criminal prosecution for unlawful railroad charges, a tariff sheet publicly posted; a druggist's record of sales kept under a statute to charge him with illegal liquor selling. By a statute in Massachusetts, "no official paper chanrobles.com-red
It would unduly extend this opinion to review the cases which are said to oppose Wigmore's deduction, but, as Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, is cited in the opinion of the court, I will refer to it briefly.
It was there held that an officer of a corporation could not refuse to produce its books on the ground that they would criminate the corporation. What privilege an officer of the corporation had from producing the books on the ground that they might criminate him was not necessary to decide, as immunity from prosecution was given by statute for any matter as to which he should testify. It may be contended that it is a natural inference from the decision that. but for the immunity granted. he could have claimed such privilege. See also Nelson v. United States, 201 U. S. 92. Circuit Judge Gilbert, in a well considered opinion in Ex parte Chapman, 153 Fed.Rep. 153, made such deduction from Hale v. Henkel, and discharged Chapman from custody to which he had been committed for refusing to produce for the inspection of a grand Jury the books and papers belonging to a corporation of which he was an officer.
The weight of authority, therefore, is against the power of a court to compel the production of books of a private corporation by anyone whom they would criminate. And the cases seem right on principle. The spirit of the privilege is that a witness shall not be used in any way to his crimination. When that may be the effect of any evidence chanrobles.com-red
Neither plausible arguments therefore nor considerations of expediency should prevail against or limit a principle deemed important enough to be made constitutional. Such a principle should be adhered to firmly. It is said in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 635, that
"constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis."
In a case of seizure and forfeiture of certain property under the customs-revenue laws for fraudulent invoicing, Boyd entered a claim for the property. Before the trial, it became important to know the quantity and value of the property. In obedience to an order issued by the court chanrobles.com-red
Bentham on Judicial Evidence, vol. 5, page 229 et seq. A reply would be difficult if government had no other concern than the punishment of crime. chanrobles.com-red
A limitation by construction of any of the constitutional securities for personal liberty is to be deprecated. A people may grow careless and overlook at what cost and through what travail they acquired even the least of their liberties. chanrobles.com-red
The process of deterioration is simple. It may even be conceived to be advancement, and that intelligent self-government can be trusted to adapt itself to occasion, not needing the fetters of a predetermined rule. It may come to be considered that a constitution is the cradle of infancy, that a nation grown up may boldly advance in confident security against the abuses of power, and that passion will not sway more than reason. But what of the end when the lessons of history are ignored, when the barriers erected by wisdom gathered from experience are weakened or destroyed? And weakened or destroyed they may be when interest and desire feel their restraint. What then of the end; will history repeat itself? And this is not a cry of alarm. "Obsta principiis" was the warning of Mr. Justice Bradley in Boyd v. United States against the attempt of the Government to break down the constitutional privilege of the citizen by attempting to exact from him evidence of fraud against the customs laws. I repeat the warning. The present case is another attempt of the same kind, and should be treated in the same way.