[47] 203 U.S. 563 (1906)
[48] Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 441-443 (1911); Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925). See also Bessette v. W.B. Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324, 327-328 (1904).
[49] 267 U.S. 87, 119-120 (1925).
[50] Michaelson v. United States, 266 U.S. 42, 65-66 (1924).
[51] 154 U.S. 447 (1894).
[52] Penfield Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 330 U.S. 585 (1947). Note the dissent of Justice Frankfurter. For delegations of the subpoena power to administrative agencies and the use of judicial process to enforce them see also McCrone v. United States, 307 U.S. 61 (1939); Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U.S. 501 (1943); Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186 (1946). In the last mentioned case Justice Murphy dissented on the ground that delegation of the subpoena power to nonjudicial officers is unconstitutional as "a corrosion of liberty." In the Endicott Johnson Case he expressed dissatisfaction with the exercise of this power by administrative agencies but confined his dissent to emphasizing greater judicial scrutiny in enforcing administrative orders to appear and produce testimony.
[53] 1 Stat. 73, 81.
[54] Ibid. 81-82.
[55] 1 Cr. 137 (1803). Cf. Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321 (1796).
[56] McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cr. 504 (1813); and McClung v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598 (1821).