In Hale v. Henkel79 it was urged that while the immunity statute might protect the individual witness, it would not protect the corporation of which he was the agent and representative. To this the court answered that it was not the intention of the statute to do this nor was there a constitutional necessity that this should be done. The right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, it was declared, is purely a personal one of the witness. "It was not intended to permit him to plead the fact that some third person might be incriminated by his testimony, even though he were the agent of such person. . . . If he cannot set up the privilege of a third person, he certainly cannot set up the privilege of a corporation."

76 27 Stat. at L. 443.

77 "Provided, that no person so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying."

78 161 U. S. 591; 16 Sup. Ct. Pep. 644; 40 L. ed. 819. In Hale v. Henkel (201 U. S. 43; 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370: 50 L. ed. 652), a statute of February 25, 1903, was upheld which grants immunity with reference to prosecution under the Anti-Trust Act of 1S90. The word "proceeding" as employed in the phrase of the statute that no one should be prosecuted, etc., on account of any testimony given in any "proceeding, suit or prosecution" under the acts enumerated, was held to include examinations before a grand jury.

79 201 U. S. 43; 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370; 50 L. ed. 652.