use those
affairs also have aspects of public interest, become 'public' records in
the sense that they fall outside the constitutional protection of the
Fifth Amendment. The validity of such a doctrine lies in the scope of
its implications. The claim touches records that may be required to be
kept by federal regulatory laws, revenue measures, labor and census
legislation in the conduct of business which the understanding and
feeling of our people still treat as private enterprise, even though its
relations to the public may call for governmental regulation, including
the duty to keep designated records.... If Congress by the easy device
of requiring a man to keep the private papers that he has customarily
kept can render such papers 'public' and nonprivileged, there is little
left to either the right of privacy or the constitutional privilege."
Ibid. 70.
[78] The Institutes, Part 2, 50-51 (1669).
[79] On the above _see_ especially Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion
in Hurtado _v._ California, 110 U.S. 516, 538 (1884); _also_ Den ex dem.
Murray _v._ Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 280 (1856);
Twining _v._ New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908); _also_ Corwin, Liberty
Against Government (Louisiana State University Press), chap. III.
[80] Scott _v._ Sandford, 10 How. 393, 450 (1857).
[81] Adkins _v._ Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923). _See also_
Adair _v._ United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908); and Lochner _v._ New
York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).
[82] Den ex dem. Murray _v._ Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How.
272, 276 (1856).
[83] Union P.R. Co. _v._ United States (Sinking Fund Cases), 99 U.S.
700, 719 (1879).
[84] Wong Wing _v._ United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896).
[85] United States _v._ Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253, 263 (1905); _cf._ Quon
Quon Poy _v._ Johnson, 273 U.S. 352 (1927).
[86] Wight _v._ Davidson, 181 U.S. 371, 384 (1901).
[87] Lovato _v._ New Mexico, 242 U.S. 199, 201 (1916).
[88] Public Utility Comrs. _v._ Ynchausti & Co., 251 U.S. 401, 406
(1920).
[89] Johnson _v._ Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950); _cf._ In re
Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946). Both decisions were reached by a divided
Court. In the Yamashita Case, Justices Rutledge and Murphy dissented on
the ground that the due process clause applies to every human being,
including enemy belligerents.
[90] Davidson _v._ New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 102 (1878). Public Clearing
House _v._ Coyne, 194 U.S. 497, 508 (1904).
[91] Ex
|