The opinion
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
The facts are fully stated in Judge Weinfeld’s excellent opinion, 128 F.Supp. 617 , the reasoning and conclusions of which we adopt.
It is well to add a few words about defendant’s contention concerning the doctrine of Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 , 16 S.Ct. 644 , 40 L.Ed. 819 , which held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination relates solely to testimony that might lead to defendant’s prosecution for a crime. Defendant asks us to modify this doctrine in the light of new circumstances which have since arisen. 1 We are *762 not prepared'to say that this suggestion lacks all merit. 2 But our possible views on the subject have no significance. For an inferior court like ours may not modify a Supreme Court doctrine in the absence of .my indication of new doctrinal trends in that Court’s opinions, 3 and we perceive none that are pertinent here, Accordingly, the argument must be addressed not to our ears but to eighteen others in Washington, D. C.
Affirmed.
. Cf. Taylor, Grand Inquest (1955) 217-221, 296-300; Griswold, The Fifth Amendment Today (1955) 80-81.
. See Perkins v. Endicott Johnson Corp., 2 Cir., 128 F.2d 208, 217-218 ;
“Legal doctrines, as first enunciated, often prove to be inadequate under the impact of ensuing experience in their practical application. And when a lower court perceives a pronounced new doctrinal trend in Supreme Court decisions, it is its duty, cautiously to be sure, to follow not to resist it.”
See also Picard v. United Aircraft Corp., 2 Cir., 128 F.2d 632, 636 ; Judge Parker’s opinion in Barnette v. West Virginia State Board of Education, D.C., 47 F.Supp. 251, 252-253 .