Wilson v. United States, ante, p.
221 U. S. 361,
followed to effect that an officer of a corporation cannot refuse
to produce books and papers of the corporation in response to a
subpoena
duces tecum on the ground that the contents
thereof would tend to incriminate him personally.
Quaere whether, if a privilege to refuse to produce
documents of a corporation
Page 221 U. S. 395
in response to a subpoena
duces tecum does exist, the
person entitled to claim it may not waive it by his conduct.
The facts, which involve the validity of a subpoena
duces
tecum issued to the custodian of the books of a corporation,
and the right of such custodian to refuse to produce the documents
required by such subpoena on the ground that they would incriminate
him, are stated in the opinion.
Page 221 U. S. 399
MR. JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The plaintiff in error and appellant, William Dreier, was
subpoenaed to produce before the grand jury in the circuit court
certain books and papers of the Lichtenstein Millinery Company, a
New York corporation, of which he was the secretary. The grand jury
was conducting an inquiry with respect to alleged violations of the
customs laws by N. Hayes and others. The subpoena contained the
ad testificandum clause, but the only question presented
is with respect to the demand for the corporate documents. For his
refusal to produce them for the inspection of the grand jury,
Dreier was committed for contempt. The first case (No. 358) is a
writ of error to the circuit court to review the judgment holding
him to be in contempt, and directing his commitment, and the second
(No. 359) is an appeal from an order dismissing a writ of habeas
corpus. The contention of Dreier in both cases is
Page 221 U. S. 400
that the contents of the books and papers would tend to
incriminate him, and that the proceedings to compel their
production were in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States.
It is urged that, if he had a privilege, his conduct was such as
to constitute a waiver. But it is not necessary to consider the
case in this aspect. Dreier was not entitled to refuse the
production of the corporate records. By virtue of the fact that
they were the documents of the corporation in his custody, and not
his private papers, he was under obligation to produce them when
called for by proper process.
Wilson v. United States,
decided this day,
ante, p.
221 U. S. 361. In
that case, the writ was directed to the corporation, and here it
was addressed to the custodian. As he had no privilege with respect
to the corporate books and papers, it was his duty to obey.
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA concurs in the result upon the ground of
waiver.
