'Your
petitioner, Henry Huttman, respectfully represents and shows
that he is a citizen of Sedgwick county, in the state of
Kansas, and that he is now unjustly and unlawfully detained
in custody by B. F. Royse, sheriff of said county, by virtue
of a warrant of commitment issued by the district court of
said Sedgwick county, a copy of which is hereto attached
marked 'Exhibit A.' Your petitioner further shows
that he is in the employ of the United States as deputy
revenue collector of the United States for the Fourth
subdivision of the district of Kansas; that on the 14th day
of September, 1895, he was by said sheriff served with
subpoena duces tecum, issued out of said district court of
Sedgwick county, whereby he was commanded to appear in said
last-named court on the 18th day of September, 1895, as a
witness on behalf of the state in a criminal action then and
now pending in said last-named court, entitled 'State of
Kansas vs. Davidson,' and to then and there produce and
exhibit as evidence the records of the office of the
collector of internal revenue for the district of Kansas, so
far as the said records might show official transactions
between the said collector of internal revenue and his
subordinates and the defendant in said criminal action
touching an application for a special retail liquor
dealer's tax stamp supposed to have been made by said
defendant to said collector, or your petitioner, acting for
him, and the issuance to said defendant of such special tax
stamp by said collector, or your petitioner, acting for him
that your petitioner, as directed by said subpoena
personally appeared in said district court of Sedgwick county
on the 18th day of September, 1895, and was sworn as a
witness on behalf of the state in said criminal action, and
was interrogated by the attorney for the state touching the
foregoing records from the office of the collector of
internal revenue for the district of Kansas; that thereupon
the attorney of the United States for the district of Kansas
(being requested so to do by the commissioner of internal
revenue) moved in said state court to quash said subpoena
duces tecum so far as it required or commanded the production
and exhibition of said records as evidence in said criminal
action, which said motion to quash was by said state court
on the 19th day of September, 1895, granted and sustained;
that thereafter your petitioner was required by said state
court, under said subpoena, to be and remain in attendance on
its sessions as a witness in said criminal case, and on the
20th and 21st days of September, 1895, was called and sworn
as a witness therein on behalf of the state; that on this 23d
day of September your petitioner was interrogated, and asked
to state what, if any, statements or communications had been
made by the defendant in said criminal case to your
petitioner touching an application alleged to have been made
by said defendant to your petitioner (acting for said
collector of internal revenue) for a retail liquor
dealer's special tax stamp; and that your petitioner
replied to such questions, in substance and effect, that said
defendant had made no statements or communications to your
petitioner save and except such as were required by law to be
and were reduced to writing for the purpose of making such
writings a part of the records in the office of said
collector of internal revenue; and that all oral statements
made by the defendant to your petitioner were made to him in
his official capacity, aforesaid, for the purpose of reducing
them to writing. And your petitioner further shows that he
also stated to said state court, in substance, that all such
statements were extorted from said defendant by law, for
revenue purposes alone; that the information so obtained was
privileged; that said records are required to be kept in the
office of said collector; that your petitioner had no
authority to produce them in said state court; that such
production would interfere with the
performance of his duties by said collector, and tend to
defeat the government in the collection of its revenues; that
all statements which might be made by your petitioner would
be statements of the contents of said records; and that your
petitioner, for the foregoing reasons, and because he was so
instructed by the commissioner of internal revenue, by
official regulation made conformably to law, respectfully
declined to answer said interrogatories. And your petitioner
further shows that upon his so declining to answer said
questions, and solely by reason thereof, the said district
court ordered your petitioner committed for contempt of said
state court, and until he did answer such questions; and
that, therefore, the commitment hereinbefore described was
issued and served, and that solely by reason thereof your
petitioner is now held in custody and deprived of his liberty
by said B. F. Royse, sheriff of said Sedgwick county, Kansas.
And your petitioner further shows that he has not declined to
testify, in obedience to said subpoena, as to any fact within
his knowledge other than as aforesaid, but has simply
declined to testify as to the contents of the records of the
office of collector of internal revenue for the district of
Kansas, and as to statements made to him as hereinbefore set
forth, and that neither the contents of said records nor said
statements are proper evidence in said state court; and said
state court cannot lawfully compel the contents of said
records to be disclosed, nor lawfully compel your petitioner
to divulge said statements. Wherefore, to be relieved of said
unlawful detention and imprisonment, your petitioner prays
that a writ of habeas corpus, to be directed to said B. F.
Royse, sheriff of Sedgwick county, Kansas, may issue in this
behalf, so that your petitioner may be forthwith brought
before this court to do, submit to, and receive what the law
may direct.'