Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 207 U.S. an invalid and unauthorized order deprived it of property without due process of law. The statute is a highly penal one. A corporation failing to comply with a proper and lawful notice is subject to punishment for contempt and may also be enjoined from longer doing business in Vermont. The whole proceeding was a summary one, and the jurisdiction of the court to act depended upon a strict compliance with the statute. Since the statute was not complied with, all the proceedings here taken were null and void, and the plaintiff in error was adjudged in contempt without due process of law. Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119. See also Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713; Ex parte Rowland, 104 U. S. 604; Ex parte Ayers, 123 U. S. 443; Ex parte Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200; Ex parte Burrus, 136 U. S. 586; Re Bonner, 151 U. S. 242. Neither statute nor notice to produce afforded the plaintiff in error an opportunity to present in court reasons why the writings demanded should not be produced. The notice to produce which could be issued under the statute by a non-judicial body in effect pronounced an ex parte judgment on the plaintiff in error without hearing or notice and denied due process of law. Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 389, 390; Roller v. Holley, 176 U.S. 398. Where the subpoena duces tecum requires appearance and the production of documents in a place other than open court, the witness has a right to have the question whether he shall answer or produce passed upon by the court, with opportunity for defense, and an order of the court to produce before he is in contempt. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 80; Interstate Commerce Com. v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447, 479. See also Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25; Ballman v. Fagin, 200 U. S. 186; Nelson v. United States, 201 U. S. 92. This statute is an attempt by the State to limit a corporation 207 U.S. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. in the complete dominion and control of its property situated in another State, although the corporation is not organized under her laws and is not personally within her jurisdiction. The sovereign powers of a State cannot be exercised beyond her borders. Union Refrigerator Co. v. Kentucky, 199 Ụ. S. 194; Buck v. Beach, 206 U. S. 392; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 592; N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 153 U. S. 628; Mississippi &c. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 2 Black, 485. The statute attempts to confer judicial functions upon nonjudicial bodies, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The powers bestowed are judicial in their character which cannot be exercised by the legislature itself, much less delegated to a non-judicial body. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168. See also In re Pacific Railway Comm., 32 Fed. Rep. 241, 253. The statute and notice required the plaintiff in error to produce writings which tended to incriminate it, without extending immunity against criminal prosecution. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547; Ballman v. Fagin, 200 U. S. 186. Even if the notice had contained an order for the plaintiff in error to appear before the grand jury, no question of law in reference to self-incrimination could properly have been raised before that body. Ballman v. Fagin, 200 U. S. 186; Ex parte Wilson, 39 Tex. Crim. Rep. 630. The statute, since it contains no immunity clause, is in plain contravention of article X of the Vermont constitution, which is substantially the same as the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547; Emery's Case, 107 Massachusetts, 172; State ex rel. Attorney General v. Simmons & Co., 109 Missouri, 118; In re Cullinan, 82 App. Div. (N. Y.) 445. See also Ex parte Clarke, 103 California, 352; Ex parte Cohen, 104 California, 524; Lamson v. Boyden, 160 Illinois, 613; Ex parte Carter, 166 Missouri, 604; Smith v. Smith, 116 N. Car. 386; People v. Forbes, 143 N. Y. 219; People v. O'Brien, 176 N. Y. 351; Logan v. Railroad Co., 132 Pa. St. 403, 408; United States v. Lead Co., 75 Fed. Rep. 94. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 207 U.S. For the same reason, the statute is in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits the infringement of fundamental rights by state action, whether legislative, executive or judicial. The right to be protected against self-incrimination is a fundamental right so protected. Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 605, 631. The statute and notice to produce authorized an unreasonable search and seizure of the private books and documents of the plaintiff in error. Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43. See also In re Pacific Railway Comm., 32 Fed. Rep. 241; Ex parte Clarke, 103 California, 352; Lester v. People, 150 Illinois, 408; Ex parte Brown, 72 Missouri, 143; State v. Davis, 117 Missouri, 614; Corson v. Hawley, 82 Minnesota, 204, 214; Newberry v. Carpenter, 107 Michigan, 567. The statute provides no compensation for the time, trouble and expense imposed upon a corporation in a foreign State or country of collecting and sending the documents demanded to the State of Vermont. Such a requirement is, in substance, a taking of property without just compensation, and, furthermore, the taking is not in Vermont, but outside her limits, where the expense is incurred and the labor performed. Chicago &c. Ry. Co. v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 561; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403; Chicago Ry. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226. The statute is confined in its operation to corporations. An arbitrary classification is thus established, and the plaintiff in error is deprived of the equal protection of the law secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. The classification created by this statute is a purely arbitrary one and in conflict with the principles laid down by this court in Gulf &c. Ry. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150. Where evils sought to be remedied are incident to individuals as well as corporations, laws applicable only to corporations are clearly unconstitutional. Johnson v. Goodyear Mining Co., 127 California, 4; Quarries Co. v. Bough, 80 N. E. Rep. 529 (Ind. 1907); Ballard v. Mississippi Cotton Oil Co., 81 Mississippi, 207 U.S. Argument for Defendant in Error. 507, 569. See also Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540. Mr. Clarke C. Fitts, Attorney General of the State of Vermont, for defendant in error: Where a witness is within the jurisdiction of the court issuing the subpoena, he may be compelled to produce books and papers, if they are within his control, though the physical location thereof may at the time be without the jurisdiction. Bank v. State Bank, 3 Cliff. 201; Wigmore on Evidence, 2200. The plaintiff in error resided in Maine, but it was doing business in Vermont, and was present in Vermont. Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 11, 12; Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 258, 261; Insurance Case v. Francis, 11 Wall. 210. The question whether the notice in its scope goes beyond the statute and as to whether the books and papers called for would be legally admissible is one for the state court alone. It is within the established power of the State to prescribe the evidence which is to be received in the courts of its own government. Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 599; Fong Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 729. The requirement of the production of books and papers did not compel the company to incriminate itself. Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 597. Law in its regular course of administration through courts is due process, and when secured by a law of the State, the constitutional requirement is satisfied, and due process is so secured by laws operating on all alike. Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462; Kent's Commentaries, vol. 2, p. 13; Marchant v. Railroad Co., 153 U. S. 390. A corporation may be punished for contempt as well as an individual person. People v. Railroad Co., 20 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 358. Where a foreign corporation is doing business in another State, it is proper to punish a contempt by a fine as well against the corporation itself as the subordinate agents found within its jurisdiction. United States v. Railroad Co., 6 Fed. Rep. 237. MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. We take the findings of fact by the state court as conclusive upon us. It therein appears that the company was duly served with a notice (which was in substance a substitute for a subpœna duces tecum) to produce books and papers required, and that they had not been destroyed, but were then under its control and custody; that the papers were material evidence upon the subject of inquiry before the grand jury, and that the company had (with some minor exceptions) omitted and refused to produce them before that body. The company had a hearing before the court, and an opportunity was given it, under the statute, to set up any reasonable cause for its failure to comply with the requirements of the notice. The court, after this hearing, found the company guilty of the contempt charged and fined it accordingly. The company insists that the proceedings were in violation of the Constitution of the United States. The objections made before us were: (1) That the notice to produce was in excess of the authority granted by the statute, and was therefore invalid; (2) that neither the statute nor the notice afforded the company an opportunity to present in court reasons why the writings demanded should not be produced; (3) that the effect of the statute is to limit a corporation in the complete dominion and control of its property situated in another State, although the corporation is not organized under the laws of the State of Vermont, and is not personally within her jurisdiction; (4) that the statute attempts to confer judicial functions upon non-judicial bodies, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; (5) that the statute and notice required the company to produce writings which tend to incriminate it, without extending im |