*1 Francisco, all milk sold San by appellants, since raised the Medical Commission of by the Milk not certified pasteurized, to be the ordinance required by Society, challenge the this suit do appellants since the pas the Fourteenth Amendment validity under In court order the state requirement. teurization light make the case may proper disposition of questions cannot be decided the fact the federal without either here, judgment, we vacate costs Court, the cause the Supreme and remand party proceedings Court of for such further California may appropriate. 507; deem 308 U. S. Knott, Florida v. Washington Supe ex rel. Broadcasting Co. v. Columbia Court, Ry. rior Co. 613; U. S. Missouri ex rel. Wabash Comm’n, v. Public 126. U. Service S.
So ordered. UNITED v. MONIA STATES al. et January Argued December 1942. Decided 1943. No. Miller, Solicitor General Mr. Edward H. with whom Arnold, Mr. Rob- Fahy, Attorney Assistant General Stern brief, ert L. on the for the States. were Mr. Hodson, A. L. with whom Messrs. Faulk- Charles J. ner, Jr., Weymouth Kirkland, Barnes, John P. R. F. Feagans, Walter H. Jacobs, and Thomas Reynolds A. were *2 on the brief, appellees. for opinion delivered the
Mr. Justice Roberts Court.
This is a appeal direct from the District Court Northern prosecuted Illinois pursuant Criminal Appeals Act.1 It presents a question upon which the lower federal courts have sharply question divided.2 The is whether who, one obedience to a subpoena, appears grand before a jury inquiring into an alleged violation Act, Sherman and gives under testimony oath sub- touching stantially alleged offense, obtains from prosecution for offense, pursuant to the terms Act, the Sherman he his although does not claim privilege against self-incrimination. Act3 provides in part: Sherman subjected
. . no person prosecuted shall be or be to any any on trans- penalty or forfeiture for or account of action, thing concerning or matter, may testify which he produce or evidence, documentary otherwise, or or proceeding, prosecution under said Inter- suit, Acts [the state Act, Act, Commerce Sherman Antitrust other further, testifying Provided that no acts]; person so 2, 1907, 1246, 1Act as amended Act of March 34 Stat. May 9, 1942, 271, 56 18 682. Stat. U. S. C. 2Compare Co., 808; States 142 States v. Armour & F. United United 428; Skinner, 870; Elton, v. 222 United 218 United F. F. States v. 517; 471; States, Lee, States v. F. Johnson 5 F. 2d United 290 v. United Co., Lay United New 136; States v. Fish 13 F. 2d States v. Greater Pardue, 1005, Poultry C., York Live with C. 33 F. 2d United States Moore, 576; 543; Ward, 294 F. F. States v. United States v. 295 United Goldman, 593; 15 F. 2d F. 2d States v. 424. S. C. February 25, c. U. punishment exempt shall testifying.” in so committed perjury of June the Act That supplemented statute was material, is 1906,4which, so far the above provisions . under [of “. . natural only to a shall extend Act and others] testimony gives to a who, subpoena, obedience person other- documentary or evidence, produces under oath or under wise, oath.” charging corporations
An returned indictment was conspiracy with individuals, including the two appellees, The appel- the Sherman Act. prices fix violation that, in obedi- bar, alleging each special pleas lees filed served, as witness subpoena duly to a he appeared ence inquiring jury grand for the United before the States *3 indictment, and charged respecting matters testimony gave substantially connected with trans- is made by question actions covered the indictment. No given substantially the testimony but that so did relate subject of to the transactions which were the indictment. insufficient,
The States demurred to pleas neither alleged since that the witness asserted claim privilege against self-incrimination therefore and neither the Fifth Amendment of the nor the Constitution immunity statute him. could avail
The District Court overruled the demurrers on the ground plain that mandate of precluded the statute prosecution of the appellees they whether had claimed the privilege or not. We that right. hold decision
Beyond dispute the appellees were entitled to if the is given statute to be effect itas is written. We are it asked, quali- to read into a however, fication the effect that immunity is not obtained unless against privilege self-incrimination is claimed. Inas- 798,15 U.S.C.33. privilege, much as the statute is to this and addressed the Fifth said privilege Amendment, is accorded it is if for the privilege, is offered as a substitute the immunity, privilege, ought like the to be claimed; Amendment, thus the statute the Fifth which materia, pari given are will a consistent construction. In urged it is place, the second of the qualification terms forthright necessary of the in order to statute is unfair, unreasonable, avoid an and unintended result. The if argument runs that the statute is construed auto- grant immunity matically to without claim of privilege, a prosecutor is at he disadvantage, since does whether, extent, know or to what a witness may have participated the risk crime; so runs of unin- tentionally affording immunity. On the other so hand, said, the witness full knowledge has as to the nature of his own to his conduct, possible and as incrimination and it is not unfair him testimony, require to claim put prosecutor his and so on notice if that, he the testimony, insists will witness obtain immunity. legislation well-understood course before and adoption
after the statute involved, legis- and the history, compel rejection lative of the contentions.
The Fifth Amendment declares person that “No . . . compelled any criminal shall be case be a witness investigation himself.” grand An aby jury is a criminal case.5 The speaks Amendment of compulsion. preclude does not *4 a witness from testifying voluntarily in may matters which incriminate him. If, therefore, he protection desires the the privilege, he must claim it or he will not be been considered to have “compelled” within meaning of the Amendment.6
More seventy ago than years Congress was advised in that, prosecuted suits by the States, United where 5 v. Hitchcock, 547, 142 U. S. 562. Counselman 6 Vajtauer 113. Commissioner, States ex v. 273 U. S. rel. persons, certain to be sought from been had
evidence interposed had claim Government, they by used In by the courts.7 sustained had been which delay incident and the obstruction to forestall order validity claim, of the witness’ determination judicial though necessary evidence, even to obtain order and the Act Congress adopted founded, were well the claim Act R. This became 860. February 25,1868,8 which S. in effect, judicial provided, proceedings applied all could be used from a witness obtained that no evidence proceeding. against him a criminal Hitchcock, 142 U. S. court, This Counselman because, prevented it Act unconstitutional while held the pre did not of the evidence witness, the use gained of information prosecution as result clude his clearly that testimony. The court indicated from his com nothing justify would short of absolute testify if he privilege. claimed his witness pelling an original Commerce Act9 contained Interstate the form held invalid immunity provision Coun the decision in that Con case, case. To meet selman February which gress passed 11, 1893,10 applied only under the Interstate Commerce Act. proceedings the model for however, This became statute, up enacted at various times which were provisions including February 25, supra, the Act of with here which we are concerned. This court sustained the constitutionality of these Acts. In for the District Court Northern District Co., held, of Illinois United States v. Armour & 142 F. voluntary furnishing that a appearance, 7Cong. Globe, Sess.,pp. 950-51, 1334. Cong., 40th 2d 8 15 Stat. 37.
924 Stat. 383. 443, 49 27 Stat. U. S. C. 46. Walker, Brown v. 161 U. S. *5 subpoena, operated without information testimony and the Sherman under immunity to confer conferred was held The court Act. Fifth Amend- given by than broader if it since, interest public The decision attracted ment. prosecution by himself from immunize stood, one could investigatory information to bodies. Con- volunteering supra, gress adopted Act of June promptly extend to only should providing in obedience person who, subpoena, natural testified produced Congressional under evidence oath. The Record that the sole purpose shows the bill was exactly language what its states.12 Senator sponsored who Knox, bill, “Mr. President, stated: the purpose of this bill is clear, range very is not broad. It is not intended all disputed provisions cover as the rights of wit- under any nesses circumstances, except those enumerated in the bill itself.”
It is evident that Congress, by the earlier legislation, opened had the door to a practice whereby the Govern- might ment be trapped conferring into unintended immunity by witnesses volunteering testify.
amendment thought, was the Congressional Record demonstrates, to be sufficient protect the Government’s interests preventing immunity prosecuting unless the officer, or other Government official concerned, should compel the by subpoena witness’ attendance and have him sworn.
Not until 1933 did evidence an intent that if must, witness desired he addition, assert privilege. his constitutional In a series of acts adopted between in- provision 1940 an additional adding requirement.13 serted These acts indicate 12 Cong. 5500, 7657-58; Rec. 8734-39-40. g. Exchange Act, 900, 15 (d); See e. Securities 48 Stat. S. 78u U. C. Act, (d).- Investment Advisers 54 Stat. C. 15 U. S. 80b-9 *6 to simple how would have been a provision add similar applicable Act, to the Interstate Commerce the Sherman been Act, and others which have allowed to stand originally amending enacted for the 1906.14 save legislation in the case in plain The involved instant is if he and, face, layman its on its means to the that terms im- to sworn, testifies, is and he is have subpoenaed, Government, as trap for the munity. being, Instead a if inter- original Act, question, was the the statutes trap well preted desires, may as the now be a Government afford Congress evidently for intended to the witness. witness the subpoenaing Government officials choice that he knowledge him oath, under with the putting respect- from immunity prosecution would have complete transac- ing connected with the substantially matter right testified, retaining the respect of which he or tions him. by to examine prosecute foregoing opportunity to in issue Congress intend, not the statutes That did must his that, witness claim provide, addition, legis- add privilege, not for seems clear. It is us Congress what pretermitted. lation amongst the diversity We have referred to of views court that lower courts. The Government insists has view. Its reliance question settled in favor States, Heike case, v. 131. That is U. S. only immunity however, decided conferred protect legislation question was intended to the Fifth Amendment witness same extent him. The protects question was whether prosecution extended to crimes with which the mat- remotely ters testified to were but connected. court This justify held as the Amendment did that, not a claim of 14 may be, thoroughness that, preliminary It due investi gation Congress question, of cases in classes has believed representatives warning needed further Government’s no of the subpoenaing examining a witness and him under oath. result privilege contingencies, such remote the im- munity construed not to reach them. should likewise in- question necessity The before an of witness vestigatory body claiming his order to earn his was not decided. judgment
The
Affirmed. dissenting: Mr. Justice Frankfurter, is beyond dispute that the Constitution does compel to afford
those testify who without invoking the constitutional privilege against question self-incrimination.
decision whether, by here is 34 30, 1906, the Act of June amending Stat. 798, immunity of provision February 25, of 1903, 904, Congress granted 32 Stat. more than the requires Constitution and offered a to “gratuity States, Heike v. United crime,” 227 131, 142, by U. S. conferring immunity persons to who testify without claim- ing protection privilege against self-incrimina- tion way and who no indicate that their is testimony being given in return for the statutory immunity. In words, other did Congress, by that amendment, to seek facilitate the enforcement by making of law “evidence compulsory available and could otherwise be ibid., got,” passing or was it an of amnesty? act question This be cannot answered closing our eyes everything to except naked words of the Act of June 1906. The notion because the of words a statute meaning is also plain, plain, merely pernicious are its is oversimplification. English It is a wooden doctrine of vintage (see Plucknett, rather recent A History Concise Law, ed., the Common 2d 29-4-300; Amos, The Inter- 5 L. pretation Statutes, Davies, Camb. J. The 163; L. Interpretation Statutes, 519), Col. to 35 Rev. which which since lip service here, occasion been has on but given days rejected, of Marshall this Court has especially United, g., Fisher, practice. E. States Cranch States, Boston Sand Co. v. United 385-86; 278 U. S. Trucking v. American Assns., States 48; 310 U. S. A living organisms, 542-44. like de statute, other significance environment, rives and sustenance being mutilated. from which it cannot be severed without be statute, is this true where the like one Especially us, legislative having history fore is of a part process cannot be meaning The a statute purpose. such gained by confining Only corners. inquiry within its four an incom legislation the historic which is process of such gave which as well as plete fragment to rise —that meaning. And gave yield which rise to it—can its true we turn of federal history so must to provisions. dealing with earliest federal statute as amended January 24, 1857,
the Act Stat. legislation, January the Act of 333. This 24, 1862, 12 Stat. Congress, relating testimony before either House Con model later provisions. furnished a for which it was gress precisely careful what was to state shall hereafter given: “No witness immunity was any testify allowed produce fact or refuse added). . paper. (italics . .” *8 witness, a to as appear refusal refusal to not testify, gave it for which Congress away which and took immunity. problem— core this lies at the of
Duty, privilege, not relieves of duty not the testify, privilege to Chancellor In of Lord duty. phrase such the classic man’s evi- every to public right “the has Hardwicke, a 1 (cid:127) qualified at testimony was give dence.” The to duty 1 Evidence, indemnify Bill Debate in the to House of Lords on 25, 693, May 675, Parliamentary History England, Hansard’s § ed.) p. 64, (3d Wigmore 2192. 1742, quoted’ in on Evidence against law self-incrimination. privilege common this privilege has embodied And the Fifth Amendment privilege is a privilege But the in our fundamental law. limit range privilege withhold and not a answers not public The Constitution forbid inquiry. does only It asking questions. provides a criminative compelled questions such witness cannot be to answer privilege unless “a full for constitutional substitute” Hitchcock, 547, U. given. v. S. Counselman entitles a compulsion privilege which witness which he questions to resist is the to answer compulsion him. justifiably claims tend to incriminate But would protect to obey the Constitution does a refusal process, process. subpoena course, merely A such a is, 8 Wigmore (3d ed.) on appear. summons Evidence p. § 2199. There never has been a to dis- duty And when regard subpoena to which a calls. Congress turned to the device of legislation, it did not a “substitute” for the therefore, provide per- duty appear formance universal a witness— give did not nothing. undertake to something incriminating give testimony was refusal to for which Congress bargained, give not the refusal to testi mony. only And it in exchange for self-incriminating testimony got” which “otherwise could (Heike not be States, 131, 142) 227 U. S. because of the witness’s rights invocation his constitutional con immunity against ferred the use of such testimony. giving
Instead of more than the equiva- constitutional the privilege lent self-incrimination, Congress long give enough. for a time did not See Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. 547, invalidating S. Act Febru- ary It. first S. § relating statute judicial In proceedings. order to re- move the gap between-what gave and what the Constitution was construed to require, Congress promptly
434 in order 443, Stat. February 11, 1893, the Act of passed the Interstate of enforcement effective interrupt not Congress reveal, acted the debates As Act. Commerce this Court Counsel- understanding of what on its adequate legislative alter was an indicated decision man Cullom, July 18, of Senator See remarks native. language Act followed The 1893 Cong. Rec. 6333. “no 24, 1857, providing January of Act attending testifying be excused person shall from (italics added). . . .” 27 books producing from S. Court, Walker, 161 U. Brown in 1896 this And “sufficiently satisfies found that There was no guarantee protection.” of constitutional Congress given anything had belief that indication major bare give and, indeed, only a than had to more — given as thought had of the Court statute ity required. much as Constitution century, there- Certainly beginning of this until Congress displayed magnanimity no criminals fore, Indeed, affording for their crimes. sensi- amnesty so immunizing Congress against has been crime that it tive prosecutors generally power entrusted with the has exchange to relieve witnesses incriminating evidence But as part others. legislative program for the correction of corporate abuses, in February provisions 1903 included immunity in three measures, additional the Act February 14, 1903, 828, establishing 32 Stat. the Depart- ment Commerce and conferring Labor and Commissioner Corporations the investigatory powers possessed by Interstate Commerce Commission, Elkins Amendment February 19, 32 Stat. to the Interstate Commerce Act, February the Act of 25, 1903, 32 making Stat. 903-04, large appropriations for the enforcement of the Interstate Act, Commerce Law, Sherman and other enactments. is this latter *10 provision, of which is im- 1906, as amended the mediately before us. Judge startling was not until the decision of District Co., in Armour & F. States
Humphrey 808, Congress, that the suggestion seriously made that was in studiously fashioning equivalent a constitutional the against Lady self-incrimination, playing was Bountiful which criminals. The concerns particular the Armour opinion they stirred be must heeded because provoked legis- the Act of The meaning of that lation is lost unless derived the which from circumstances gave begun rise to it. case out proceeding arose of a under creating the Act February 14, 1903, Stat. the Department of Commerce and Labor. Section that Act provided Secretary the and Commerce Labor shall “from time to time make such investi- special gations reports may required and he be . . . as to do either Congress.” In House of obedience to resolution of the Representatives, House of the directed Secretary Corporations investigate Commissioner prices causes of the low cattle. Accordingly, of beef inquiry. Commissioner instituted a confer- such an At ence with of the packing corporations officers and their explained the Commissioner and counsel, purposes investigation. scope of his He informed them he acting independently not in with the cooperation Department of Justice its contemporaneous proceeding against alleged the “Beef Trust” for the Sher- violations Law, man and that obtained the pack- evidence from given Department ers would not be would to the but President, reported only for his appropriate use. (H. 59th 1st Cong., Sess., p. 6.) Doc. No. There- agents were oppor- Commissioner’s afforded an tunity the packers’ to examine books and papers.
Subsequently,
an indictment under the Sherman Law
was found
corporations
their
packing
filed, alleging
substance
in bar
Pleas
were
officers.
by the Com-
made
investigation
as a
that,
result
obtained
defendants had
Corporations,
missioner of
charged in
the offenses
pleas
Judge
sustained these
Humphrey
indictment.
ground
defendants on
to the
individual
brought
into
by the defendants
information furnished
February
immunity provision of the Act of
operation
the Act
14, 1903,
incorporated by reference
which
testimony
relating
February
*11
Judge
Interstate Commerce Commission.
before the
attributing
Con-
his
Humphrey reached
conclusion
purpose
gress
passing
February
the Act of
a
unanimously rejected in Heike
which this
later
Court
States,
Humphrey
Judge
Judge Humphrey doubtless fell into error because he treated the provision as subsidiary to the main purpose, as he it, conceived of the Act establishing the Department of Commerce and Labor. He believed “the primary purpose” of that Act was to “secure information legislative for the body.” use 142 F. at plain that he did not view immunity provisions in their true light, is, as means to facilitate the adminis- tration of the criminal law. justification Whatever Judge Humphrey may have had for entertaining such notion with to the regard creating Act Department of Com- Labor, merce and it certainly has application no to the immunity provisions touching the Interstate Commerce and the Sherman Law. provisions Those were en- acted as aids the enforcement of criminal justice; they amnesty were not designed wipe acts of out criminal offenses.
Acting swiftly to correct the error of the Armour de- cision, the President recommended that “the Congress declaratory a act” to Judge set aside pass Humphrey’s misconception congressional of purpose. Message from States, the President of United April 18,1906, H. Doc. 706,59th Cong., Sess., p. doing, 1st In so No. President acting upon Theodore Roosevelt was the advice of At- (soon torney to become Mr. Justice) Moody. General legislation Naturally enough, declaratory directed Judge the two to the correction of evils Hum- itself namely, to make clear that phrey’s opinion projected, for producing corporate should not be afforded had which could event be because the documents cor- self-crimination is not available to States, 372-74, S.U. v. United Wilson porations, give evidence under does a who person and that was not being witness incident formalities ordinary responsive legislation was immunity. entitled General by Attorney as stated position, the Government's the Armour the Gov- case] these facts Moody: “Upon [in could statutory that the contended ernment the Commis- subpoenaed by only upon persons conferred testi- subsequently give might Corporations who of sioner terms) those legal sense of (in the mony evidence indictment.” H. of the subject-matter relating to the Cong., Sess., p. 7. No. 59th 1st Doc. purpose limited was the of
Such 1906 amendment. having President it be that the proposed, Could and the enacted, having regard- a restrictive declaration Congress ing scope provision pre- order to following the courts from latitudinarian vent other mis- Judge Humphrey, President and the conception acting upon both advice one of the Congress, ablest Attorneys General, unwittingly betrayed were into introducing gratuity duty a new witnesses under subpoena, giving amnesty exchange an respond response? for the mere years than
For more seventeen thereafter it was urn given than Con- questioned Congress had no more required evi- stitution —freedom be obtained, dence that could not otherwise evidence that privilege, was claim constitutional evi- withheld given only because had provided dence ruling all federal courts immunity. This was on question, courts which sat some which considered United judges day Judge their Martin of the ablest — Heike, in United States Judge States v. F. Grubb 852; States Skinner, Judge F. Hunt 870; v. *13 in Johnson United Elton, 428; Judge and Rose v. F. purpose narrow of the 1906 States, F. 2d 471. The amendment, light which gave events rise to it, succinctly was Judge set forth “Quite Rose: clearly only things act did two it and was to intended do no more. It it made clear that the immunity granted did not inure to benefit of corporations a natural person claim could not it he had unless testified obedi- ence to a to subpoena. passed was meet the serious Congress thought situation which President and had been the rulings Judge created . . . Humphrey. It was clearly change intended to the previously existing in any law other respect. ... A construction given should not be to which would grand result in a jury or officer prosecuting unwittingly conferring im- munity upon a serious offender good because best faith, and with no suppose reason to that he was crimi- nally transaction, involved he subpoenaed to produce give some documents or to some testimony which just could as well been perhaps have obtained from other Unquestionably sources. the witness has the constitu- object tional to right testifying. to Then it to open is government elect whether it will or proceed will not under if statute, with his examination but it does not, rights they were before he was called to his remain States, F. 2d Johnson v. stand.” United States Judge Grubb The observations Skinner, here: 870, 879, equally pertinent F. are “The many informed witness, cases, is alone as whether him. supposed will tend to incriminate The his evidence may incrimination relate to offenses not under investi- tribunal, gation by examining and of the existence which, desired or of relation of the evidence which examining government may tribunal law officer knowledge. have no Case apt Heike is an illustra- tion possibility. of this The witness likely have knowledge exclusive toas what facts and what answers may tend with incrimination, to his reference what *14 he whether alone knows the witness Again,
offenses.
exonerating
the
of
purpose
evidence
willingly gives his
receiving immu-
only
expectation
or
with the
himself,
in
be
position
a better
is therefore
nity
He
therefor.
than
privilege
his constitutional
to assert
upon
called
govern-
officer of the
or the law
tribunal
examining
is the
any hardship
If
so.
him elect
do
ment to call
witness,
burden on the
imposition of
attends
to relieve
weighty enough
been considered
has never
exercising
privilege,
his constitutional
him therefrom
granted
The immunity
immunity statutes.
prior
for the constitutional
is a mere substitute
by the statute
by
held
Court to
Supreme
been
safeguard, and has
seem, therefore,
it. There would
be
with
coterminous
different
as to
assertion
practice
to be no reason for a
immunity
desired and where
privilege
where
is
upon.”
insisted
the constitutional
weighty
These
reflected
considerations
decisions thus
policy
finding
Congress
afforded
prosecution only to the extent that
the Constitution re-
quired
exchange for a
privilege and
giving away indulgences.
was not
These
certainly
considerations of
were
policy
which,
in the opinion
answered
court
the Texas district
in 1923,
departure
made the first
uniform con-
from this
struction
statute. The court held that
merely
came
because one testified
obedience to
subpoena,
claim,
explicit
implied
without
either
circumstances,
right
that he had a constitutional
might
to refuse
ground
to answer on the
thereby
that he
testimony
being given
incriminated and that the
was
only under compulsion
statute. United
Pardue,
States v.
upon his constitutional rights, if he protec- desires their tion, when there is an immunity statute than he is where there is none at all. It thing is one to find that incrimi- nating given by answers given witness were because the setting of the particular circumstances he would not have been allowed to withhold them. quite is another suggest that one who appears as a witness should, merely because his appearance is obedience to a sub- poena, thereby obtain “on account of trans- action, matter thing concerning which he may testify,” though even the incrimination may relate to a transaction wholly foreign inquiry to the in which testimony given though and even the most alert and conscientious would prosecutor slightest inkling not have the testimony led to a trail of self-crimination. con- Such a struction makes of the statute what history clearly be, namely, carefully reveals devised instrument for achievement justice, of criminal but a gratuitous measure for the relief of criminals. The *16 judgment Congress that public statute reflects the “the right a every has man’s evidence.” is not for us to relax society upon appear the demands of citizens to in proceedings to enforce laws enacted the public good.
Beginning 87, with the Act of 1933, Securities 48 Stat. Congress regulatory has enacted no less than seventeen provisions immunity which contain measures self-incriminating testimony. in exchange for Ex including inter these, fourteen, Of alia the Securities Re change 1934, 900, Act of the National Labor 48 Stat. 1934, Act of 456, 49 the Communications Act, lations Stat. Company Act of 1097, Utility Holding Stat. the Public 832, Act, 858, 49 Stat. Power 49 Stat. 1935, the Federal 1022, and the 52 Stat. con 1938, Civil Aeronautics Act compulsion fer a testifies under person when having against self-incrimi- privilege “after claimed his the Motor statutes, of these however, nation.” Three Alcohol 550, the Industrial Act of Carrier Stat. Labor 875, and the Fair Standards Act, 49 Stat. additional clause— not contain do 1938, Stat. used Con- customarily form follow the old they merely there Of course, Act of 1933. gress to the Securities prior statutory language provisions. of these in the a difference is end with cannot construing a statute process But finding one The task is literary differences. noting necessarily in words is and a difference meaning; is question meaning they carry. in the difference whether different, but are provisions these not whether If the difference difference. in the significance is there the im- scope in the a difference language reflected in the considerations nature of munity given, there would differentiation, Congress to make moved faint, somewhere however indication, some surely be legis- that some enactments of these legislative history had language the difference was aware lator none. there is But significance. to confer gratuitously fit
If saw in proceedings to as witnesses appear who to citizens August Act of it Carrier the Motor enforce give such why should understand hard to were asserting privilege, their who, after to those only enforce the give proceedings evidence pressed and August 26, 1935, proceedings Act of Power Federal Act which Holding Utility Company Public to enforce given have again should law the same became day, Act, Alcohol gratuitously Industrial Un- following day. The Railroad became law the which the Fair Act, Insurance employment *17 both became Labor 52 Stat. Standards June 1938. Yet day, law same claimed, having the former the “after provision of contains only It is not. of the latter does clause, etc.” and that purpose if there was a that Congress to assume fair citizens when in demands a difference make than one statute rather under witnesses appear as they have been stated somewhere would other, purpose that But there is a legislative history. in course of Con- anywhere any that indication any total absence the enforcement notion gressman had Act, or Alcohol 1935, the Industrial Carrier Act of Motor for a differ- 1938, called Fair Labor Act of Standards these in under proceedings of witnesses ent treatment under the other proceedings than in Acts enforcement There seems obvious. explanation fourteen Acts. The indicate in legislative materials expressions are no between respect in legislative that the varied purpose in purpose. these Acts because there was no difference in the employed in the phraseology But the variations of a just caprices away as explained Acts are not to be found to be likely single explanation draftsman. The adopting in Congress usually the manner in which acts in had drafted single If draftsman regulatory legislation. there statutes, in provisions all seventeen each of these the difference might believing be some reason But it is in language meaning. reflected a difference frequently knowledge that these measures are common (per- by specialists drawn, instance, at least first departments) government with interested haps connected different measures the various fields. Provisions problem not unnat- dealing procedural with the same uniformity phrasing. urally, therefore, lack how very far in to see not have to look order We do immunity pro- to use one form of happened form others. statutes and another vision some these which fol- of the three statutes Consider evolution The Motor Carrier Act old, pre-1933 lowed the form. the Interstate enacted an amendment more natural than Commerce Act. What was *18 incorpo- of the old Act should be provisions enforcement by the new providing powers rated reference in 201, 205e, the And the §§ Commission. Stat. 550. Alcohol Industrial Act of so far as its enforcement provisions concerned, were its patterned upon was predecessor, the National 1919,41 Prohibition Act of the pro- draftsman took the naturally immunity from vision that statute. more Act of 1938 has a Standards Fair Labor revealing history. even more Intro- but
complicated it the May 24, 1937, in carried the Senate on duced first gains immunity "after person that a provision explicit privilege against his self-incrimination.” having claimed throughout form the course of the It remained nearly the Senate for in both the House and legislation bill conception changed. the of the when whole year, enacting clause, out after the was struck Everything April to the House on the measure was submitted new that new the part bill, provision As of witnesses the enforcement of the Act attendance provision reference incorporated simply obviously Act—and Trade Commission this was Federal of the new bill heavily the draftsmen drew because Act. But of that there is an utter the scheme want of suggestion support year after a evidence of this and the proponents legislation, committees that problems, changed with its their grappled minds as to the immunity to be afforded extent of the to witnesses sum- under the Act. proceedings Nor moned is there debates that when finally passed evidence present form, give measure its meant to greater that which was provided than in the various were before Senate and bills that the House for a year. taken
The course Securities Act of 1933 before finally revealing it was enacted is significance as to the provision, depart first from the old Up the bills which eventually form. time emerged conference, became form. The ap- the old new formula provision followed in the bill reported by for the first time the confer- pears *19 in report But neither the conference nor ence. elsewhere that any suggestion phrase there introduction of this is legislative new or that it was imported any purpose any- rephrasing of thing more than a careful a conventional statutory provision. In the case of the Fair Labor Stand- seen, phrase, ards we have more meticulous Act, having privilege claimed his self-incrimina- “after in bills in both the tion,” was all successive House and the stage at the final disappeared Senate but it of enact- one suggested, of measure. No ever far as ment so show, in change materials the available change as to the intended implied scope formula substance, ob- is immunity provision. Style, In the case of one viously explanation. statute, form and Congress began with the new ended with the old other, began it with the old one case one; Upon what rational can and ended with new. basis Congress scope an intention to make attribute to we vitally of the one immunity provision of the statute the other? different from caprice respect is not attribute To here, policy we find uniform when, as purpose rational though variously phrased even history rooted deeply meeting the the same end of same always directed to but requirement. constitutional that an opinion appearance response
I am therefore confer from not of itself subpoena does responding anything a witness so prosecution for be conscious surrender testify. There must may inquiry. of a testimonial the course silence necessary is to claim one’s no form words course Of privilege. may Circumstances such establish a claim. But there must be some manifestation of surrender of the privilege. prosecutor’s insistence disclosure which, but for from prosecution, could be with- held is that for which alone the given. History reject and reason alike the notion that immunity squandered be giving gratui- is to tously responding duty, to the owed everyone, when as a appear summoned witness.
Since the to the pleas demurrers should have been sus- tained, the case should remanded district court appropriate disposition with accordance the views expressed. herein Douglas joins dissent.
Me. Justice HARRIS, ADMINISTRATOR, v. ZION’S SAVINGS
BANK & TRUST CO. January Argued No. 268. December 1942. Decided 11, 1943.