FAIR AND REASONABLE RESTRAINTS. See COMBINATIONS, ETC., 129, 329, 346.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Although Commission Has Taken no Action, Suit for Damages May Be Maintained in Federal Court, Under the Clayton Law, for Price Discriminations.-An action may sometimes be maintained in a Federal district court to recover damages for alleged price discriminations by defendant against plaintiff in violation of the Clayton Law, although the Federal Trade Commission has taken no action in the premises. Frey & Son v. Cudahy Packing Co., 232 F., 640. FISH. See COMBINATION, 280, 283. FOREIGN CITIZENS.

-384

May Be Controlled by United States When Operating Within Its Territory. While the United States may not control foreign citizens operating in foreign territory, it may control them when operating in the United States in the same manner as it may control citizens of this country. U. S. v. Pacific & Arctic R. & N. Co., 228 U. S., 106. 5-231

FOREIGN COMMERCE.

Transportation of Passengers Between United States and Europe
Forms Part of. The transportation of passengers between the
United States and Europe forms a part of the commerce of
the United States with foreign nations subject to con-
gressional regulation, under which right Congress has power
to prohibit all contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in
restraint of such commerce. U. S. v. Hamburg-American
Line, 200 F., 806.

FORFEITURE OF GOODS. See SEIZURE; Statutes, etc., 129.
FRANCHISES. See CORPORATIONS, 36.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT.

4-894

Acts Done Openly by Corporation, Incapable of Fraudulent Concealment. If defendants, having secured control of the G. company buying a majority of its stock, elected officers or directors of their own choosing, including the three individual defendants to form the G. company's entire board of directors, and continued them in office at successive elections, stopping the G. company's business, and enforcing the disuse of its patents in order to prevent its competition with another concern in which they were interested, such acts, not having been done in secret, were incapable of alleged fraudulent concealment, so as to entitle the G. company's trustee, in dissolution proceedings, to recover damages after limitations had run, on the ground that the acts had been fraudulently concealed by the defendants, and that the trustee had acquired knowledge thereof within the period limited. Strout v. United Shoe Mach. Co., 208 F., 652.

-553

FREIGHT RATES.

Index-Digest.

For Ocean-Carrier Trade Not Unreasonable Because at Times Tramp Steamers Cut Them Greatly to Secure Cargo.—Regular rates for the ocean carrier trade are not unreasonable because at particular times or places tramp steamers are willing to cut them greatly in order to secure a cargo. U. S. v. Prince Line (Ltd.), 220 F., 233.

GRAND JURY.

5-680

1. Powers-Witnesses-Refusal to Testify-Contempt.-Where, after a witness had refused to testify before a grand jury considering supposed infractions of the Sherman Law, the grand jury made a presentment to the court charging the witness with contempt, and the court, after hearing, ordered the witness to answer the questions and to forthwith produce the papers required, the court's action was equivalent to an express instruction to the grand jury to investigate the matter referred to in the presentment, and hence the fact that the grand jury had been previously acting beyond its power was harmless. In re Hale, 139 F., 496. 2-804

Order affirmed. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S., 43 (2—874).
See also IMMUNITY.

2. Supervision of Evidence Before, by Courts.-The evidence that shall be received before a grand jury is not subject to judicial control. In re Kittle, 180 F., 947. 3-804 3. Review by Courts of Evidence Before Grand Jury.-Except in States having statutes on the subject, courts will not review the evidence received by a grand jury on a motion to quash, for the purpose of passing on its competency. U. S. v. Swift, 186 F., 1018. 4-76

4. Drawing of Special in Kentucky.-In drawing a special grand jury in a Federal circuit court in Kentucky, the clerk, for the purpose of distributing the jurors as evenly as possible between the several counties from which they were drawn, followed the method of rejecting the names of all jurors drawn who resided in a particular county after the desired number from each county had been drawn, continuing the drawing until the desired number had been drawn from each county. By Rev. St. §§ 802, 805, it is provided that jurors shall be returned from such parts of the district as the court shall direct so as to be most favorable to an impartial trial, and that special juries when ordered shall be returned in the same manner and form as is required by the laws of the State. Ky. St. § 2243 (Russell's St. § 3066), provides for the drawing of juries in the State court by the judge. Held, that the mode pursued by the clerk was, at most, irregular, and not prejudicial, and not such a plain error as would be noticed by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the absence of an assignment of error thereon. Steers v. U. S., 192 F., 4. 4-432

HABEAS CORPUS.

Index-Digest.

1. Removal of Prisoner-Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts.-Where a
prisoner, arrested under warrant based upon an indictment
in a distant State and district, is held pending an applica-
tion to the district court for a warrant of removal for trial,
the circuit court of the district in which he is held has
authority on habeas corpus to examine such indictment and
to release the prisoner, if in its judgment the indictment
should be quashed on demurrer. In re Terrell, 51 F., 213.

1-46
2. Same. On habeas corpus to release a person held under a
warrant of a United States commissioner to await an order
of the district judge for his removal to another district to
answer an indictment, it is the right and duty of the circuit
court to examine the indictment to ascertain whether it
charges any offense against the United States, or whether
the offense comes within the jurisdiction of the court in
which the indictment is pending. In re Greene, 52 F., 104.
1-54
3. Witness-Contempt-Incriminating Evidence.-Where a witness
is committed for contempt in refusing to answer all of a
series of questions, for the reason that the answers would
tend to criminate him, and some of the answers would have
that tendency, he should not be denied relief on habeas
corpus because some of the questions might be safely an-
swered. Foot v. Buchanan, 113 F., 156.
2-104

4. Witness Committed for Contempt by One Judge Would Not Be Dis-
charged by Habeas Corpus by Another Judge of Same Court.-
Where a subpœna duces tecum was directed to be issued
by a circuit judge, and the witness was committed for con-
tempt for failure to obey the same, he would not be dis-
charged on habeas corpus by another judge of the same court,
though the latter was of the opinion that the subpoena author-
ized an unconstitutional search and seizure of private papers.
In re Hale, 139 F., 496.
2-804

Order affirmed in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S., 43 (2-874).
5. Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts in Contempt Proceedings.—Where
the circuit court has full jurisdiction, its findings as to the
act of disobedience of its orders are not open to review on
habeas corpus in the Supreme Court or any other court. In
re Debs, 158 U. S., 564.
1-566

HATS.

See COMBINATIONS, 253-255, 260, 261.

HOLDING COMPANIES.

TO VOTE STOCK. See COMBINATIONS, ETC., 169–177, 336, 337.
TO RECEIVE ASSIGNMENTS OF PATENTS. See COMBINATIONS, ETC.,
178-181, 343,

Index-Digest.

IMMUNITY.

1. Of Witnesses Before the Grand Jury.-Act of Congress, February 11, 1893 (27 Stat., 443), providing that no persons shall be excused from testifying in a proceding growing out of an alleged violation of an act to regulate interstate commerce, approved February 4, 1887, on the ground that his testimony will tend to incriminate him, and that no person shall be prosecuted, etc., on account of anything concerning which he may testify in such proceeding, applies only to proceedings connected with the act of February 4, 1887, and does not apply to a prosecution for violation of the Sherman Law, so as to abrogate in relation thereto the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, providing that no person shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself. Foot v. Buchanan, 113 F., 156. 2-104 2. Same-Question of Incrimination One for Judge.-Where a witness claims that the answer to a question will tend to incriminate him, it is not for the witness, but for the judge, to decide whether, under all the circumstances, such might be the effect, and the witness entitled to the privilege of silence. Ib. 2-109 3. Same. Where a person has already been indicted for an offense about which he is to be examined as a witness, and the questions asked him tend to connect him with such offense, the testimony sought is within the inhibition of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution providing that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Ib. 2-110 4. Same-Witness Not Compelled to Act Upon an Assurance of Judge. Where a witness before a grand jury declines to answer certain questions, and is taken before the judge, who assures him that he can safely answer, as his testimony can not be used against him, he is not compelled by such assurance to relinquish his constitutional privilege, where the answer may tend to criminate him. Ib. 2-110

5. Same. An inquisition before a grand jury to determine the existence of supposed violations of the Sherman Law was a "Proceeding" within the act of February 19, 1903 (32 Stat., 848), providing that no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify or produce evidence in any 'proceeding" under several statutes mentioned, including such Sherman Law. In re Hale, 139 F., 496. 2-804 6. Same. The examination of witnesses before a grand jury concerning an alleged violation of the Sherman Law is a proceeding" within the meaning of the proviso to the act of

Index-Digest.

February 25, 1903 (32 Stat., 854-903), that no person shall be prosecuted or be subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for, or on account of, any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify or produce evidence in any proceeding, suit, or prosecution under certain named statutes, of which the Sherman Law is one. The word "proceeding" should receive as wide a construction as is necessary to protect the witness in his disclosures. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S., 43.

2-874

7. Same. The interdiction of the Fifth Amendment operates only where a witness is asked to incriminate himself, and does not apply if the criminality is taken away. Ib. 2-898 8. Same.-A witness is not excused from testifying before a grand jury under a statute which provides for immunity, because he may not be able, if subsequently indicted, to procure the evidence necessary to maintain his plea. The law takes no account of the practical difficulty which a party may have in procuring his testimony. Ib. 2-899 9. Same. The difficulty, if any, of procuring such testimony does not render the immunity from prosecution or forfeiture, given by the proviso to the act of February 25, 1903, insufficient to satisfy the guaranty of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution against self-incrimination. Ib. 2-899 10. Same.-A witness can not refuse to testify before a Federal grand jury in face of a Federal statute granting immunity from prosecution as to matters sworn to, because the immunity does not extend to prosecutions in a State court. In granting immunity the only danger to be guarded against is one within the same jurisdiction and under the same sovereignty. Ib. 2-900

11. Same. The privilege against self-incrimination afforded by the United States Constitution, Fifth Amendment, is purely personal to the witness, and he can not claim the privilege of another person, or of the corporation of which he is an officer or employe. [To same effect, McAllister v. Henkel, 201 U. S., 90 (2-919).] Ib. 2-900

12. Same.

Under the practice in this country the examination of witnesses by a Federal grand jury need not be preceded by a presentment or formal indictment, but the grand jurors may proceed, either upon their own knowledge or upon examination of witnesses, to inquire whether a crime cognizable by the court has been committed, and if so, they may indict upon such evidence. Ib. 2-896 13. Same.-In summoning witnesses before a grand jury it is sufficient to apprise them of the names of the parties with respect to whom they will be called upon to testify, without indicating the nature of the charge against such persons. Ib.