In the case of In re Potts, 1896, the petitioner was a bankrupt individual who had previously served as an attorney. The issue at hand was whether he could be compelled to turn over his books and papers for inspection in relation to his bankruptcy proceedings. He argued that this would violate his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that since these documents were not created under any compulsion or threat of penalty but voluntarily during regular business operations, they did not fall within the protection offered by the Fifth Amendment's clause on self-incrimination. Therefore, he must produce them for examination in connection with his bankruptcy proceedings.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Potts, 1896, argued that the petitioner should not be held in contempt for refusing to answer certain questions during a bankruptcy proceeding. The dissenting justices believed that the petitioner had a constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer any question which might incriminate him. They also contended that this privilege against self-incrimination extended beyond criminal cases and applied equally in civil proceedings such as bankruptcy hearings. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation of Bankruptcy Act provisions and maintained it did not compel debtors to testify about their property or financial affairs without providing immunity from prosecution based on those testimonies. Thus, they concluded that holding Mr. Potts in contempt was unconstitutional.