Latest Important Cases Court went on to cite authorities, both
English and American. Moreover, — "Where the documents of a corpora tion are sought, the practice has been to subpoena the ofiicer who has them in his custody.
But there would seem
to be no reason why the subpwna duces tecum should not be directed to the cor poration itself. Corporate existence im plies 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 hav ing records, books and papers, it is under a duty to produce them when they
may properly be required in the adminis tration of justice. . . “A command to the corporation is in effect a command to those who are ofii cially 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 per formance of the corporate duty, they,
477
actions were as much a part of its docu mentary property, subject to its control
and to its duty to produce when law fully 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 and other corre spondence, as well as copies of the corre spondence relating to the business and
affairs’ of the corporation. But his per sonal letters were not demanded; these the subpoena did not seek to reach; and as to these no question of violation of privilege is presented. Plainly he could not make these books his private
or personal books by keeping copies of personal letters in them. . . . “The physical custody of incriminat ing documents does not of itself protect the custodian against their compulsory production. The question still remains with respect to the nature of the docu
ments and the capacity in which they are held. . . . Thus, in the case of public records and ofi‘icial documents, made or
no less than the corporation itself, are
kept in the administration of public
guilty of disobedience, and may be
oflice, the fact of actual possession or of
punished for contempt. . . . "The appellant asserts his privilege against self-incrimination. There is no question, of course, of oral testimony, for he was not required to give any. Un doubtedly it also protected him against the compulsory production of his private books and papers. Boyd v. United States,
lawful custody would not justify the
supra: Ballmann v. Fagin, 200 U. S. p.
195, 50 L. ed. 437, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 212. But did it extend to the corporate books? "For there can be no question of the
ofiicer
in
resisting
inspection,
Evidence. denoe.
See Circumstantial Evi
Interstate Commerce. Natural Gas May be Subject of —State Statute may not Burden Interstate Commerce by Dis
criminating Against Foreign Pipe Line Corporations.
character of the books here called for. They were described in the subpoena as
even
though the record was made by himself and would supply the evidence of his criminal dereliction."
U. S.
possession, he withheld. The copies of letters written by the president of the
Natural gas, when reduced to posses sion, is a commodity which belongs to the owner of the land, and may be the subject of both intra-state and inter state commerce, said the United States
corporation in the course of its trans
Supreme Court in
the books of the corporation, and it was the books so defined which, admitting
West v.
Kansas
