If, whenever an officer or employee of a corporation were summoned before a grand jury as a witness, he could refuse to produce the books and documents of such corporation upon the ground that they would incriminate the corporation itself, it would result in the failure of a large number of cases where the illegal combination was determinable only upon the examination of such papers. Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State.

The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen.

He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.

His power to contract is unlimited.

He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him.

He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property.

His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State,

and can only be taken from him by due process of law,

and in accordance with the Constitution.

Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and

the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure

except under a warrant of the law.

He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State.

It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public.

It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter.

Its powers are limited by law.

It can make no contract not authorized by its charter.

Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as

it obeys the laws of its creation.

There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate

its contracts and find out whether

it has exceeded

its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of

its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose.

The defense amounts to this: that an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges.