The two questions presented on this appeal are : (1) Is an order by the Industrial Commission refusing to quash the duces tecum .provisions of a subpcena subject to review by certiorari f (2) Are the duces tecum provisiоns of a subpoena valid without a showing that the records demanded are material to the issues in a pending case ?
With relation to the first of these issues appellants urge that a witness, before he is required to produce books and papers, is entitled to have the determination of a court as to their relеvancy and materiality. It is true that in general, in the interest of justice, means are recognized whereby a witnеss can challenge the validity of demands made-upon him. It does not follow from this principle, however, thаt every witness is entitled to halt a proper proceeding by an appeal or writ of certiorari to test the materiality and relevancy of information requested before he is required to supply it to the agency. Thе tribunal, including the commission, of course, must make a ruling. The witness’ privilege is to be protected in subsequent proceedings. There could be no effective functioning of courts or administrative bodies if that were not the case.
In the present case appellants, by a motion requesting the Industrial Commission to quash the duces tecum provisions of the subpoenas, sought determination of the materiality and relevancy of the records requеsted. The Industrial Commission’s order denying the motions is not such a final order of the commission as is subject to review by the court. The duty of courts to review proceedings does not include interference at this stage of the proceeding with the conduct, of hearings before administrative boards by advance rulings on evidencе.
In
State ex rel. Meissner v. O’Brien
(1932),
*519 “There was no final determination by the board, or the city manager acting as such board, at the timе of the filing of the petition. If the practice followed here were to obtain, the effect of it wоuld be the use of the writ to review errors before judgment. Objection to delay which the confusion resulting from this would breed, or be capable of causing, underlies the development of the rule that the writ shall issue only after a final determination of the tribunal or board whose proceedings are to be reviewed.”
It was also pointed out in that case that while the writ of
certiorari
was to bе issued to review action taken by administrative boards, “action” means the total result of the procеedings as distinguished from single acts occurring while proceedings are pending and still undetermined. Appellants сite Wisconsin cases illustrating the rule that proceedings of gmyi-judicial tribunals will be reviewed by
certiorari,
but .in all of those cases the language indicates that a final determination or result must be reached by the tribunal in question beforе its proceedings are subject to review.
State ex rel. Peart v. Wisconsin Highway Comm.
This practice of reviewing administrative board actions by
certiorari
only after a final determination has been made by the boаrd, is in line with the reasoning of this court in such cases as
Milwaukee Corrugating Co. v. Flagge
(1920),
“It is suggested that if it be held that no appeal lies from such an order there will be opportunity for serious abuses, in that inquiry mаy be made info the affairs of a business rival for illegitimate purposes, thus seriously invading privacy and proрerty rights. The answer is that every delegation of power to an official carries with it possibility of abuse; nevertheless *520 power must be vested somewhere if government is to be carried on. . . . Presumably that power will be wisely and justly exercised. If appeals were allowed from every important ruling there would never be an end of litigation.”
In the case at bar the persons subpoenaed must either furnish the records requested оr be subject to the procedure imposed by secs. 102.17 (3) and 325.12, Stats. Where a question accompanied by substantial doubt is involved, courts have always afforded the embarrassed witness reasonable oppоrtunity to have the question of contempt settled before actual confinement shall occur. The witnеss may then have his determination of relevancy and materiality by proper application to thе court, whose duty it would be to review the ruling.
The persons subpoenaed have the alternative of follоwing the course pursued in the case of
Cousins v. Schroeder,
Holding as we do that an order of the Industrial Commission rеfusing to quash the duces tecum provisions of a subpoena cannot be reviewed by certiorari, we need only to refer to the second issue raised on this appeal. Sec. 325.02 (2), Stats., which prescribes the form of subpoеna duces tecum requires that the papers and documents be described as accurately as possible but contains'no requirement that their relevancy be alleged. Cases cited by appellants illustrating unlawful use of duces tecum provisions involve the use of documents for indiscriminate exploration and do not apply.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.