The opinion
CALSTON, District Judge
(concuring)
If this matter were one of first impression I could easily reach the conclusion that the immunity statute in question is in effect a circuitous attempt to circumvent the Constitution by a short-cut legislative statute amending the Fifth Amendment. However, it would appear that the authorities support the contention that Congress has the power to compel testimony by the enactment of an immunity statute which provides an immunity co-extensive with privilege against self-incrimination. Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 , 16 S.Ct. 644 , 40 L.Ed. 819 ; Smith v. United States, 337 U.S. 137 , 69 S.Ct. 1000 , 93 L.Ed. 1264 . Secondly, that being so, consistently it can be argued that the statute is not invalid for failure expressly to grant immunity from state prosecution. United States v. Murdock, 284 U.S. 141 , 52 S.Ct. 63 , 76 L.Ed. 210 ; Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487 , 64 S.Ct. 1082 , 88 L.Ed. 1408 . See also Jack v. Kansas, 199 U.S. 372 , 26 S.Ct. 73 , 50 L.Ed. 234 .
The good faith of the Attorney General when he acts under 18 U.S.C.A. Section 3486 (c) should be assumed.