Courts of equity frequently decline to interfere on behalf of a complainant whose attitude is unconscientious in respect of the matter concerning which it seeks relief.
The suggestion that a person who has testified compulsorily before a grand jury may not be able, if subsequently indicted for some matter concerning which he testified, to procure the evidence necessary to maintain his plea, is more fanciful than real.
But even if it is true that most people are naive moral realists, the question of what would happen if they ceased to be so is an empirical matter, concerning which neither optimism nor pessimism seems prima facie more warranted than the other.
'(N o person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing, concerning which he may testify.' Act of February 11 , 1893 27 Stat.
He could not 'be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing, concerning which he (might) testify * * *.' 49 U.S.C. 46, 49 U.S.C.A. § 46.
What, then, is meant by the clause in this act that 'no person shall be prosecuted * * * for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing, concerning which he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise'?
Is, then, the undeniable repugnancy that exists between the constitutional guaranty and the compulsory provisions of the act of February 11 , 1893 overcome by the proviso relieving the witness from prosecution and from any penalty or forfeiture 'for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing, concerning which he may testify or produce evidence'?
'shall not be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which, in accordance with the order by competent authority, he gave answer or produced evidence, and that no such answer given or evidence produced shall be received against him upon any criminal proceeding.' § 2447(2447
(4) A general description of the matters concerning which the witness will be asked to testify.
Dennett goes on to argue that there is often no fact of the matter concerning the precise time at which informational vehicles become conscious – hence his preference for talking in terms of 'informational vehicles' as opposed to 'experiences'experiences
"New York State mistakenly characterized this as tax due from payroll, whereas the matter concerned partnership distribution, which is not subject to payroll tax.
