The objections to the jurisdiction on the ground that there was no "cause" or "specific charge" pending before the grand jury were made and answered in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, and require no further examination.

But the question is also presented whether the subpœna was unauthorized, and hence void, because it was not directed to an individual, but to a corporation. It is urged that its form was unusual and unwarranted, in that it did not require any one to attend and to testify, but simply directed a corporation, which could not give oral testimony, to produce books.

While a subpoena duces tecum ordinarily contains the ad testificandum clause, this cannot be regarded as essential to its validity. The power to compel the production of documents is, of course, not limited to those cases where it is sought merely to supplement or aid the testimony of the person required to produce them. The production may be enforced independently of his testimony, and it was held long since that the writ of subpoena duces tecum was adquate for this purpose. As was said by Lord Ellenborough in Amey v. Long, 9 East, 484, "The right to resort to means competent to compel the production of written, as well as oral, testimony seems essential to the very existence and constitution of a Court of common law, which receives and acts upon both descriptions of evidence, and could not possibly proceed with due effect without them." Where the subpoena duces tecum contains the usual ad testificandum clause, still it is not necessary for the party requiring the production to have the person producing the documents sworn as a witness. They may be proved by others. 3 Wigmore on Evidence, §§ 1894, 2200; Davis v. Dale, M. & M. 514; Summers v. Moseley, 2 Cr. & M. 477; Rush v. Smith, 1 C. M. & R. 94; Perry v. Gibson, 1 A. & E. 48; Martin v. Williams, 18 Alabama, 190; Treasurer v. Moore, 3 Brev. (S. Car.), 550;

Sherman v. Barrett, McMull. (S. Car.), 163; Aiken v. Martin, 11 Paige, 499; Note, 15 Fed. Rep. 726.

"I always thought," said Parke, J., in Perry v. Gibson, supra, "that a subpoena duces tecum had two distinct objects, and that one might be enforced without the other." In Summers v. Moseley, supra, the function of the writ was carefully considered and the judgment was rendered after consultation with the judges of the other courts. It was argued that "the duces tecum part of the writ is only compulsory as ancillary to the ad testificandum part." But the reasoning of the court negatived the contention; and it was ruled that the person subpoenaed was "compellable to produce the document in his possession without being sworn, the party calling upon him to produce it not having occasion to ask him any question." Bayley, B., said: "The origin of the subpœna duces tecum does not distinctly appear. It has been said on the part of the defendant that it was not introduced or known in practice till the reign of Charles the Second, and it may be that in its present form the subpoena duces tecum was not known or made use of until that period; but no doubt can be entertained that there must have been some process similar to the subpana duces tecum to compel the production of documents, not only before that time, but even before the statute of the 5th of Elizabeth. Prior to that statute, there must have been a power in the crown (for it would have been utterly impossible to carry on the administration of justice without such power) to require the attendance in courts of justice of persons capable of giving evidence, and the production of documents material to the cause, though in the possession of a stranger. The process for that purpose might not be called a subpœna duces tecum, but I may call it a subpœna to produce; the party called upon in pursuance of such a process not as a witness, but simply to produce, would do so or not, and if he did not, I can entertain no doubt that

it would have been open to the party for whom he was called to make an application to the court in the ensuing term to punish him for his contempt in not producing the document in obedience to such subpoena. Whether he could require to be sworn not ad testificandum, but true answer to make to such questions as the court should demand of him touching the possession or custody of the document, is not now the question. Perhaps he might; but we are clearly of opinion that he has no right to require that a party bringing him into court for the mere purpose of producing a document should have him sworn in such a way as to make him a witness in the cause, when it may often happen that he is a mere depository, and knows nothing of the documents of which he has the custody."

This

Treating the requirement to produce as separable from the requirement to testify generally what one knows in the cause, it follows that the latter may be omitted from the subpoena without invalidating the former. course does not impair any right either of the opposing party or of the person responding to the subpoena. The latter may still have the opportunity to which he has been held entitled (Aiken v. Martin, supra), of showing under oath the reasons why he should not be compelled to produce the document. For this right does not depend upon the ad testificandum clause, but is incident to the requirement to produce.

Where the documents of a corporation are sought the practice has been to subpoena the officer who has them in his custody. But there would seem to be no reason why the subpoena duces tecum should not be directed to the corporation itself. Corporate existence implies amenability to legal process. The corporation may be sued; it may be compelled by mandamus, and restrained by injunction, directed to it. Possessing the privileges of a legal entity, and having records, books and papers, it is under

a duty to produce them when they may properly be required in the administration of justice.

There is no merit in the appellant's contention with respect to the application of § 877 of the United States Revised Statutes. The provision of the section that witnesses required on the part of the United States shall be subpoenaed "to attend to testify generally on their behalf, and not to depart the court without leave thereof, or of the district attorney," is in the interest of convenient and economical administration and has no bearing upon the questions here involved. It is said that, under the form of writ used in this case, the defendant in the prosecution which might follow an indictment by the grand jury would not be apprised of the name of the precise witness who might have appeared against him, and § 829 of the Revised Statutes and the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution are invoked. The contention ignores the fact that the writ calls for books and not for oral testimony; and, aside from this, neither the constitutional provision nor the statute accords the right to be apprised of the names of the witnesses who appeared before the grand jury. Even in cases of treason and other capital offenses, under § 1033 of the Revised Statutes, the required list of witnesses is only of those who are to be produced on the trial. Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263, 304; United States v. Curtis, 4 Mason, 232; Balliet v. United States, 129 Fed. Rep. 692.

Nor was the process invalid under the Fourth Amendment. The rule laid down in the case of Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, is not applicable here. In that case, an information for the forfeiture of goods under the Customs Act of June 22, 1874, c. 391, 18 Stat. 187, it was held that the enforced production "of the private books and papers" of the owner of the goods sought to be forfeited, under the provisions of § 5 of that act, was "compelling him to be a witness against himself within the

meaning of the Fifth Amendment" and was also "the equivalent of a search and seizure-and an unreasonable search and seizure-within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." But there is no unreasonable search and seizure, when a writ, suitably specific and properly limited in its scope, calls for the production of documents which, as against their lawful owner to whom the writ is directed, the party procuring its issuance is entitled to have produced. In the present case, the process was definite and reasonable in its requirements, and it was not open to the objection made in Hale v. Henkel, supra (pp. 76, 77). Addressed to the corporation, and designed to enforce its duty, no ground appears upon which the corporation could have resisted the writ. And the corporation made no objection of any sort. The appellant did not attempt to assert any right on its part; his conduct was in antagonism to the corporation, so far as its attitude is shown. A majority of the directors, not including the appellant, appeared before the court and urged their solicitude to comply with the writ. They presented their formal action, taken at a meeting of the board, in which they demanded of the appellant the delivery of the books for production before the grand jury.

Concluding, then, that the subpoena was valid and that its service imposed upon the corporation the duty of obedience, there can be no doubt that the appellant was likewise bound by it unless, with respect to the books described, he could claim a personal privilege. A command to the corporation is in effect a command to those who are officially responsible for the conduct of its affairs. "If they, apprised of the writ directed to the corporation, prevent compliance or fail to take appropriate action within their power for the performance of the corporate duty, they, no less than the corporation itself, are guilty of disobedience and may be punished for contempt. The applicable principle was thus stated by Chief Justice