Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/753

 FIRST NAT. BANK OF TOtJNGSTOWN V. HUGHES. 741 �superintendence ; direction; regulation." The exercise of no such authority is contemplated by defendants. They do not contemplate inspection, supervision, or regulation of com- plainant's business, or an enforcement of its laws or regu- lations. On the contrary, their purpose is to ascertain, in a legal way, and by legitimate testimony, whether any person had, at the time mentioned, on deposit with complainantariy money subject to taxation in said county which had not been returned by the owners thereof for that purpose. Hence, the subpœna commanding the production of the complain- ant's books, in the manner and for the purpose stated; is not an exercise of "visitorial powers;" and it follows that the witness is not protected by said section from amenability to the probate court for his contempt in disobeying its man- date. �But complainant insists, secondly, that the proposed en- forced exhibition of its books will expose its business, lessen public confidence, diminish its deposits and consequent profits, and impair the value of the franchise. We fail to see any sufiicient reason for such grave apprehensions. But if com- plainant's fears were well founded, the state might still be entitled to the testimony demanded. Private rights must to a reasonable extent yield to the public necessities. It is on this ground that a witness possessing knowledge of facts matcrial to the vindication of the rights of another may be compelled by judicial process to appear and give eiddence in behalf of that other party, notwithstanding the evidence thus coerced may uneover the witness' private business and sub- ject him to a civil action for damages. Such a witness thus duly summoned is even bound to make extraordinary efforts to attend. People v. Davis, 15 Wend. 602. For like reasons, and upon the same principles, persons in possession of writ- ten evidence, of whatsoever character, may be required to pro- duce the same to be used as evidence; and it is no ground for the refusai of a witness to produce books or papers, when required by lawful authority, that they are private. Burn- ham V. Morrissey, 14 Gray, 226. Now if the courts are thus careful to assist private persons in procuring evidence for ��� �