It is held that under this act the giving of testimony and the production of books does not deprive the witness of any rights under the fourth and fifth amendments ; In terKate Com. Com'n v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25, 24 Sup. dt. 563, 48 L. Ed. 860.
A corporation has not the constitutional right to refuse to submit its books and pa pers for an examination at the suit of the state; and an officer of a corporation which is charged with criminal violation of a stat ute cannot plead the criminality of the cor poration as ground of a refusal to produce its books ; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 26 Sup. Ct. 370, 50 L. Ed. 652.
A state, under its visitorial powers over corporations doing business therein, may compel them to produce books and papers (including those kept outside the state) for investigation, and may require the testimony of their officers and employees to ascertain whether its laws have been complied with; Hammond P. Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U. S. 322, 29 Sup. Ct. 370, 53 L. Ed. 530, 15 Ann. Cas. 645.
A subpcena duce& tecum, which is specific and properly limited in its scope, and 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, does not violate the unreasonable search and sei zure provisions of the fourth amendment, and the constitutional privilege against tes tifying against himself, cannot be raised for his personal benefit by an officer. of the cor poration having the documents in his sion; Wilson v. U. S., 221 U. S. 361, 31 Sup.
Ct. 538, 55 L. Ed. 771, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 558.
An officer of a corporation cannot refuse to produce documents of a corporation on the ground that they would incriminate him simply because he himself wrote or signed them, and this even if indictments are pend ing against him ; id.
The act of June 30, 1906, provides that under the immunity provisions of the acts of Feb., 1893, and Feb., 1903, immunity shall extend only to a natural person who ' obedience to a subpoena gives testimony der oath or evidence, documen or otherwise.
A state may require a corporation d business therein, to produce before its t nal books and papers kept by it or the s ' although, at the time the books may be side the state. It cannot refuse on ground of incrimination ; the court, on ins tion, will qetermine the sufficiency cc the ob jection, and what portion of them should be excluded. Such a statute does not deny to corporations the equal protection if the law, classification is a proper one. A Ver mont act so providing, and subic4ng to con tempt proceedings corporations \failing to comply with the act, is, rot unconstitutional as depriving corporati4s of theif property without due process of laWf or as constituting unreasonable searches or seizures, or requir ing corporations to incriminate themselves; Consolidated Rendering Co. v. Vermont, 207 U. S. 541, 28 Sup. Ct. 178, 52 L. Ed. 327, 12 Ann. Cas. 658. .
See NOTICE TO PRODUCE PAPERS; INCRIMI NATION; SURPCENA DUCES TECUM ; PBOFEBT IN CURIA.