United States v. Beavers

• Decision Date: 24 October 1903
• Citation: 125 F. 778
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. BEAVERS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

125 F. 778

UNITED STATES v. BEAVERS.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

October 24, 1903

Morgan & Seabury, for the motion.

Thomas Ives Chatfield, opposed.

HOLT District Judge.

These are motions to punish William J. Youngs, the United States district attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and Miss Amy Wren, a stenographer in his office, for contempt for failure to obey subpoenas.

The defendant, George W. Beavers, was indicted by the federal grand jury in the Eastern District of New York, and a warrant issued there for his arrest, but he was not found in that district. Thereupon an application for his arrest and removal was made before Samuel M. Hitchcock, Esq., a United States commissioner for the Southern District of New York, and the commissioner issued a warrant to the marshal for the Southern district of New York, under which the defendant was arrested and brought before the commissioner. He demanded an examination, and in the course of the examination applied to the commissioner to issue, and the commissioner thereupon did issue, two subpoenas to each of the persons William J. Youngs and Miss Amy Wren. One of these subpoenas was a general subpoena to appear and testify; the other was a subpoena duces tecum, requiring the person subpoenaed to produce certain contracts and documents, which apparently constituted evidence relating to the charge on which the indictment was based. These subpoenas were signed and sealed by the commissioner, and countersigned by the defendant's attorneys, but they were not issued or countersigned by a judge or by the clerk of this court. They were served upon Mr. Youngs and Miss Wren in Brooklyn, in the Eastern District of New York, and have not been served in the Southern District. They did not obey the subpoenas, and this motion is made to punish them for contempt in neglecting to obey them.

United States commissioners were originally authorized to be appointed by the United States Circuit Courts for the purpose of taking oaths and acknowledgments. Their powers were subsequently increased by various statutes and rules of court. By section 1014 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp St. 1901, p. 716), they are authorized to act as examining and committing magistrates in criminal cases in any state 'agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such state. ' There is no United States statute expressly authorizing a United States commissioner, when sitting as a criminal magistrate, to issue subpoenas for witnesses; but it has always been the universal practice for commissioners to issue subpoenas, and the United States Statutes impliedly recognize that witnesses are to be subpoenaed before commissioners by regulating the fees of witnesses to be taxed against the United States in any criminal case before a commissioner (Rev. St. U.S. Sec. 981 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 705)), and by authorizing the commissioner to take the recognizances of the witnesses before him for their appearance to testify in the case (Rev. St. U.S. Sec. 1014). The power of a commissioner, when sitting as a criminal magistrate, to issue subpoenas, has sometimes been though to be a power inherent in his office, independent of statute; for although he is not strictly a court of the United States (Todd v. United States, 158 U.S. 278, 15 Sup.Ct. 889, 39 L.Ed. 982) he discharged judicial functions of grave importance, and in doing so has no divided responsibility with any other officer of the government, and is not subject to any other's control (United States v. Schumann, 2 Abb.U.S. 523 Fed. Cas. No. 16,235; Ex parte Kane, 3 Blatchf. 1, Fed. Cas No. 7,597; United States v. Jones, 134 U.S. 483, 10 Sup.Ct. 615, 33 L.Ed. 1007; United States v. Ewing, 140 U.S. 142, 11 Sup.Ct. 743, 35 L.Ed. 388). I think, however, that the true basis of his power to issue subpoenas is contained in the provision of section 1014 that the proceedings shall be agreeable to the usual mode of process against offenders in the state in which the arrest is made. The adoption by Congress of state laws regulating procedure and practice in the United States courts is not unusual; as, for instance, in the well-known sections providing that the practice at common law in United States courts shall be governed by the state law regulating practice at common law in the state courts (Rev. St. U.S. Sec. 721 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 581)), and that any offense committed in a place under the jurisdiction of the United States, which is not expressly prohibited by a United States statute, may be prosecuted and receive the same punishment as the laws of the state provide for such offense when committed within the jurisdiction of the state (Rev. St. U.S. Sec. 5391 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3651)). As a criminal magistrate in this state has the power to issue subpoenas (Code Cr. Pro. N.Y. Secs. 607, 608), a United States commissioner, having power to act as a committing magistrate 'agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such state,' has, it seems to me, by the express provision of section 1014, authority to issue subpoenas.

As there is no United States statute specifically authorizing a United States commissioner to issue subpoenas, so there is no United States statute specifically authorizing a commissioner or any co...