The opinion
MATHEWS, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result).
The order here appealed from was not an order denying a motion to quash a subpoena requiring a witness to appear and produce documents before a grand jury (cf. Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323 , 60 S.Ct. 540 , 84 L.Ed. 783 ), but was an order requiring appellant to appear and produce documents before appellee in response to a subpoena issued to appellant by appellee pursuant to § ' 19(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.A. § 77s(b). The order was issued pursuant to § 22(b) of the Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 77v(b), was a final decision, within the meaning of § 128(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 225 (a), and hence was appealable. Cf. Ellis v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 237 U.S. 434 , 35 S.Ct. 645 , 59 L.Ed. 1036 ; Clarke v. Federal Trade Commission, 9 Cir., 128 F.2d 542 .
Holding, as we do, that Ellis v. Interstate Commerce Commission, supra, is not overruled by Cobbledick v. United States, supra, we may and, I think, should disregard appellee’s criticism of the Cobbledick decision. What my associates (Judges DEN-MAN and STEPHENS) say in their opinion * in answer to that criticism seems to me unnecessary and better left unsaid.
The order should be affirmed upon the authority of Woolley v. United States, 9 Cir., 97 F.2d 258 ; Consolidated Mines v. Security and Exchange Commission, 9 Cir., 97 F.2d 704 ; Atherton v. United States, 9 Cir., 128 F.2d 463 .
In the paragraph beginning with the words “We cannot” and ending with the words 'ninety district courts.”