States v. Bell, 81 Fed. 851, waiver must be voluntary and with knowledge of rights; dissenting opinion in Diggs v. United States, 220 Fed. 576, 577, 136 C. C. A. 147, majority holding where person waives privilege of refusing to testify by testifying in his own behalf, failure to testify concerning certain matters may be commented on and considered by jury.

Conclusiveness of witness' statement that his answers would tend to criminate him. Note, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 168, 169.

Witness may not refuse to testify if prosecution for crime is barred. Approved in Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 282, 41 L. Ed. 717, 17 Sup. Ct. 329, prohibition of slavery does not prevent legislation requiring seaman to carry out contracts; dissenting opinion in Re Gompers, 40 App. D. C. 342, majority holding criminal contempt is not erime within meaning of section 1044, Revised Statutes, requiring indictment to be found within three years.

Witness may not refuse to testify on ground that testimony would disgrace him.

Approved in In re Feldstein, 103 Fed. 271, holding Bankruptcy Act 1898, § 7a, providing that bankrupt's testimony shall not be used against him in any criminal proceeding, is insufficient; Mackel v. Rochester, 102 Fed. 316, 317, 42 С. С. А. 427, holding bankrupt cannot refuse to answer questions touching transfer of property, section 7 of Bankruptcy Act being sufficient safeguard; People v. Butler Street Foundry, 201 III. 248, 252, 66 Ν. E. 352, 354, upholding anti-trust law 1891, requiring corporations to answer touching violations of such act and providing for immunity from criminal prosecution.

Distinguished in In re Nachman, 114 Fed. 996, holding witness under examination in bankruptcy cannot be compelled to give answer which he claims will criminate him; Wyckoff etc. v. Wagner Typewriter Co., 99 Fed. 159, holding in suit against corporation for combination in violation of Federal laws stockholder may refuse to answer questions touching transfer of his stock; People v. O'Brien, 176 N. Y. 265, 266, 267, 68 Ν. Ε. 356, 357, holding, under N. Y. Constitution, a witness examined before magistrate on information charging another with keeping gambling-house need not incriminate himself.

Construction is deemed to follow adoption of statutes.

Approved in Heike v. United States, 227 U. S. 144, 57 L. Ed. 455, 33 Sup. Ct. 226, evidence given in investigation under Sherman Antitrust Act does not make basis for immunity of witness against prosecution for crimes with which matters testified about were only remotely connected; Robinson v. Long Gas Co., 21 Fed. 401, 136 С. С. А. 642, act of 1890 adopting for Indian Territory laws of Arkansas relating to estates of minors, adopted that State's construction of laws that lease by guardian was void unless approved by court; Steil v. Dessmore, 3 Alaska, 395, holding adoption by Congress for Alaska of Oregon statute of forcible entry and detainer includes construction previously given to such statute; People v. Butler Street Foundry, 201 Ill. 255, 259, 66 Ν. Ε. 355, 357, holding an invalid amendment cannot repeal prior valid act; Robertson v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. 219, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 440, 142 S. W. 534, following construction of English statutes embodied in State statutes and holding evidence of witnesses at former trial, in which accused had opportunity to cross-examine them, is admissible where witness subsequently became insane.

Pardoning power of President is not so exclusive as to forbid amnesty acts by Congress.

Approved in In re Briggs, 135 N. C. 124, 47 S. E. 405, reaffirming rule; Peacock v. United States, 125 Fed. 588, 60 C. C. A. 389, holding under Rev. Stats., § 5292, Secretary of Treasury has power after judgment to remit penalty or forfeiture incurred under registry laws.

Legislative power to grant pardon or amnesty. Note, 34 L. R. A. 254.

Provision in act of 1893, for immunity of witnesses before Interstate Commerce Commission is constitutional and deprives witness of right to refuse to answer.

Approved in Burdick v. United States, 236 U. S. 94, 59 L. Ed. 481, 35 Sup. Ct. 267, witness may refuse to testify on ground that testimony may incriminate him, notwithstanding President offers, and he refuses, pardon for offense connected with offense in which he is asked to testify; American Lithographic Co. v. Werckmeister, 221 U. S. 611, 55 L. Ed. 878, 31 Sup. Ct. 676, corporation defendant in suit to enforce penalties under section 4965, Revised Statutes, for infringement of copyright is not entitled under fourth or fifth amendment to object to admission of entries in books produced under subpoena duces tecum; Heike v. United States, 217 U. S. 431, 432, 54 L. Ed. 825, 30 Sup. Ct. 539, immunity of person testifying before grand jury, under act of 1903, as amended 1906, does not render him immune from prosecution, but furnishes defense which, if improperly overruled, is basis for reversal of judgment of conviction; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U. S. 45, 48 L. Ed. 869, 24 Sup. Ct. 563, and Murphy v. State, 124 Wis. 651, 102 N. W. 1092, both reaffirming rule; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 67, 68, 50 L. Ed. 662, 26 Sup. Ct. 370 (affirming In re Hale, 139 Fed. 501), holding act applies to person called to testify before grand jury; United States v. Wetmore, 218 Fed. 237, where defendants testified before grand jury as to fraud committed by them without claiming privilege, indictment subsequently found against them is not subject to quash because they testified without notice or warning; United States v. Burdick, 211 Fed. 494, where witness refuses to testify before grand jury on ground of self-incrimination, and President issues unconditional pardon, witness is deprived of right to claim privilege, whether he accepts pardon or not; Podolin v. Lesher Warner Dry Goods Co., 210 Fed. 103, 126 C. C. A. 611, where bankrupts made financial statement to creditors June, 1911, and petition in bankruptcy was filed October, 1911, they cannot refuse to file schedule on ground that government, in prosecution against them for conspiracy to defraud by use of mails to send financial statement, might obtain evidence to show financial statement was false; United States v. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co., 187 Fed. 236, provision of Sherman Anti-trust Act granting immunity to witnesses applies to civil or criminal proceedings, but not to witnesses called by defense in civil suit to restrain violations of act; United States v. Swift, 186 Fed. 1009, 1011, immunity extended to persons indicted under Sherman Anti-trust Act for conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce in fresh meats, does not extend to subsequent prosecution for continuing same conspiracy; United States v. Mills, 185 Fed. 320, holding seizure of books, papers and documents of person accused of defrauding government of customs duties was violation of fourth amendment and ordering return of same by marshal; In re Kittle, 180 Fed. 947, provision of Sherman Anti-trust Act bars all prosecution from date of testimony regardless of whether witness has been indicted or not, and witness cannot refuse to testify before grand jury on ground of self-incrimination; United States v. Heike, 175 Fed. 857, 858, 859, that accused in prior investigation before grand jury as to violation of Sherman Anti-trust Act by American Sugar Refining Company, testified that he was secretary thereof will not afford him immunity from prosecution for customers' frauds and conspiracy to defraud government in connection with business of corporation; In re O'Shea, 166 Fed. 182, witness in special pension examination may refuse to answer question to which answer will tend to incriminate him, as protection afforded by section 860, Revised Statutes, is not coextensive with fifth amendment; Ex parte Chapman, 153 Fed. 376, discharging on habeas corpus stockholder of foreign corporation doing business in Idaho, who refused to produce books and papers in investigation before grand jury of corporation's methods of acquiring timber land on ground that such books and papers would tend to incriminate him; United States v. Armour & Co., 142 Fed. 822, investigation by commissioner of corporations; Foot v. Buchanan, 113 Fed. 159, 160, holding witness cannot be compelled to testify before grand jury to his own participation in combination to control prices in violation of 26 Stat. 209; In re Sapiro, 92 Fed. 340, account-books of voluntary bankrupt are not privileged; dissenting opinion in Miskimins v. Shaver, 8 Wyo. 392, 49 L. R. A. 831, 58 Pac. 430, majority holding defendant charged with compounding felony need not testify as to such felony; Rebstock v. Superior Court, 146 Cal. 312, 313, 314, 80 Pac. 66, 67, prohibition will not lie against prosecution of one claiming immunity because of testimony given by him, such immunity being matter of defense; Manning v. Mercantile Securities Co., 242 III. 592, 593, 595, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 725, 90 N. E. 241, 242, officers of insolvent corporation indicted for misuse of mails cannot refuse to turn over books and papers to receiver on ground of tendency to incriminate them; State v. Jack, 69 Kan. 396, 400, 401, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 167, 76 Pac. 914, 915, 916, witness cannot, on ground of self-incrimination, refuse to testify before grand jury as to violations of State anti-trust law, where he is protected by immunity statute; State v. Drew, 110 Minn. 252, 136 Am. St. Rep. 491, 124 N. W. 1093, on trial of banker for receiving deposits when insolvent, schedules filed in involuntary bankruptcy proceedings are not admissible to prove insolvency when objected to on ground of tendency to incriminate; In re Briggs, 135 N. C. 123, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 47 S. E. 404, 408, 409, upholding similar statute; In re Beer, 17 N. D. 190, 17 Ann. Cas. 126, 115 N. W. 674, releasing on habeas corpus person committed for contempt for refusal to answer questions that would tend to incriminate him in grand jury investigation of violation of prohibition law, where statute does not grant immunity from prosecution; In re Biggers, 24 Okl. 845, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 622, 104 Рас. 1084, holding provision of State Constitution granting immunity in regard to matter relating to which person testifies applies only to criminal proceedings and does not apply to disbarment proceeding; Ex parte Muncy, 72 Tex. Cr. 557, 560, 163 S. W. 41, 43, denying release on habeas corpus of person committed for contempt for refusal to testify concerning homicide, where district judge offered immunity; Flanary v. Commonwealth, 113 Va. 780, 75 S. E. 291, holding immunity afforded by statute was complete and witness testifying before grand jury as to violation of election law can be compelled to testify on trial of person charged with accepting bribe although answers may tend to incriminate him; State v. Murphy, 128 Wis. 209, 107 N. W. 473, where witness denied all knowledge of wrongdoing, he did not testify concerning transaction for which he was afterward prosecuted; dissenting opinion in Frisby v. United States, 38 App. D. C. 31, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 96, majority holding indictment for forgery of instrument attached by accused to answer in equity suit in which he was defendant, and in which he testified as witness, will not lie where section 860, Revised Statutes, was in force at time of testimony, although repealed before indictment was found.

Distinguished in Burrell v. Montana, 194 U. S. 579, 48 L. Ed. 1124, 24 Sup. Ct. 787, exemption from prosecution for offense growing out of transaction concerning which bankrupt testified, not given by Bankrupt Act of 1898; United States v. Lombardo, 228 Fed. 981, section 6 of White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 violates fifth amendment by requiring party harboring alien for purpose of prostitution to furnish evidence which could be used against such person in prosecution for violation of State laws; United States v. Wilson, 163 Fed. 342, district attorney could hold papers taken from accused's trunk, and use same in evidence subject to objection of compelling witness to testify against

XVII-36

1

himself; In re Hess, 134 Fed. 112, provisions in Bankruptcy Act and in
§ 860, Rev. Stats., that incriminating evidence shall not be used against
witness do not give sufficient immunity; In re Scott, 95 Fed. 817, and In
re Rosser, 96 Fed. 308, bankrupt need not answer questions, answers to
which would tend to incriminate him; United States v. Price, 96 Fed. 962,
amnesty of statute is limited to proceeding for violation thereof; dis-
senting opinion in Ex parte Muncy, 72 Tex. Cr. 564, 565, 567, 569, 570,
571, 576, 577, 580, 584, 163 S. W. 45, 46, 47, 48, 52, 54, 56, 57, majority
refusing to release on habeas corpus person committed for contempt for
refusal to testify concerning homicide where district judge offered im-
munity.

Privilege of a witness as to incriminating testimony. Note, 75 Am.
St. Rep. 325, 346, 347.

Extent of immunity granted to witness testifying in proceeding
under Federal anti-trust act. Note, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 132.

Statutes abridging constitutional privilege of witness. Notes,
2 Ann. Cas. 177; 17 Ann. Cas. 129.

Admissibility of evidence wrongfully obtained. Note, 136 Am. St.
Rep. 149.

Privilege of witness to refuse to produce documents of which he is
not legal custodian. Note, 13 Ann. Cas. 1180.

Admissibility against accused, of article taken from him. Note, 59 L. R. A. 465.

When confession is voluntary. Note, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 773.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Jack v. Kansas, 199 U. S. 381, 382, 50 L. Ed. 236, 237, 26 Sup. Ct. 73, danger that testimony given in State court might incriminate witness under Federal anti-trust law too remote to justify refusal to answer; In re Rosenblatt, 143 Fed. 665, bankrupt must turn books over to receiver unless his claim that they will incriminate him is made in good faith and has reasonable foundation; In re Hess, 134 Fed. 113, it must appear that witness has reasonable ground to apprehend danger in testifying; In re Walsh, 104 Fed. 519, holding bankrupt claiming privilege and not having opened way by previous answer cannot be compelled to answer incriminating questions in proceeding before referee; In re Finley, 1 Cal. App. 200, 81 Рас. 1042, every intendment is in favor of constitutionality of statute; People v. O'Brien, 176 N. Y. 260, 68 N. E. 354, holding, under N. Y. Constitution, witness in prosecution against another for keeping gambiing-house cannot be compelled to incriminate himself; Rudolph v. State, 128 Wis. 231, 107 N. W. 470, witness who testified before grand jury simply that he was alderman and knew nothing of any wrongdoing, not protected by immunity statute from prosecution for soliciting bribe.