The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-04-07

iunrjsopms,. 81 a eiis - II they have the power
to arrest Justice Of tae Peace for i.sniog nm
sush ~ty may not they arrest anc irprieon nim
for daring the arbitrary power 'sanet 'ne c
s-n' The Senate through their counsel claim mere me
power which be bad lenounc>d and moreover, they
bd defence 20 tn. courts II law add to law ITSELF by
dam Ing that of justice have any rsot 70 proseo
cits sgainst arbitrsry no matter no unJss
and lie gal tue exercise OF that power may be We bad
In the urse OF our Srn'rks yests,ay compsh.s i ms
ces,sd 10 sxist but still vs evidences Of
Its inamy-tae Star Chamber. Tney had gone farther.
they had no reason saying this other attack
he senate It would be dfamAoa Of the Senate; but il
=. IL. g. to that Of those in.tituoD: then il
was defamation. and the argumeut proper ONE
had attempted to t.st the validity of the contempt
by haben. eo'pus he had erred in bringing this mat
ter before the court in thi: form hs could more
than that he erred But that he had brought this
before the courts OF he felt proud for he could
but think that the lawyer when applied TO tor aid In
such csse as this. and who would refuse to bring the
msttsr before court was a disgrace to his profes
al n. The Senate, he believed we're acting under
authority to do whatsoever thSy had done bat
in presenting this question he would take the Jour fol
loving Propositions, am on them rely FOR the discharge
Tbs, the return nust its face, show that the
defendant had suacient authority to hold the party
81. "a necessary corolary |" the lt2 That the
court to whom the retura to writ Of haze, corpus Is
m de, must look at the return and # II contains
matter sufcient to show that the committing party
proves his Jurisdiction.
the ofcsr Of court exercising jurisdiction over the
everything giving that jurisdiction must appear on
4th That on this return Ii does appear that the
Senate which is not court Of general juri,dctiop,
punished this contempt as case wherein they had ju
Now tn. ars of these propositions though not denied
rsety II. claim, for the ssn.ss al the pTivissss which
claimed by the British Parliament aud it IL rather
late in The day to sn% that any body has tia. power
claimed evsn in England for over hundred and nifty
years But he has admitted indirectly while denying
indirectly this that courts OF law have the power
investgae into circumstances in certain Gases
that is the not action for false imprson.
then this courtwoud have to enquire whether
this were a case wherein the Senate had jursd ction
Mr. Bradley then resumed the consideration of the
in SO vol Common Law Reports and read from the srgu
meuts each side ana from all the opinions of the
judges The Chief Justice in that aludDg TO the
argument that the had right to say what
the privileges claimed bv the Commons being the
sons Of the House Of Lords which in many instances
are very opposite to those Of the Commons? Also Mr.
B. mmented upon the extent Of this privilege The
House of Lords claimed right TO imprisop until the ad
journment dissolution OF Parliament IL this was the
Law here, what will become Of the prisoner WHOM the
continues always; it never is at an end What then i,
the privilege 1t nothing more by the force OF the
English decisions than that the members ef tbs British
Parliament enjoy their privileges only bite in seson
and going to sDd fro the He read from the case
Of Crosby, in Blackstones Report-to show thai
the return must CONT in the record trial and judgment
together with oil the facts, to rhow in what th-
House Of Commons had taken itself jurisdiction to
commit He said that appeared that in that there
counsel bold weak enough to sue out hsbeas
corpus ana thus bring the judiciary and the Legislature
Into conflict Mr. thought this case sufficient authority
to prove that toe return must show that the commit
ment by competent jurisdiction. He then turned
to the OF Lord Shsftesbury, where the parties
were members OF the House. in which oa.e
could doubt that the House had power to puoish;
yet in even these cases when tested upon habsas cor
pus these facts stated in the But any
that the Senate is to to the court what tho
House OF LORDS dsred not that they refuse TO comply
atN IF nfo he
why they committed citizen Of the United ststc'
would be to violate order established by hsmseves
and because theythe Sensts- thought proper 20 keep
secret? He iDstsnced the where Inc constitute
gives both houses Of Congress power to decide upon
ofits members To do So IL is given power to
witnesses and administer oaths and to comms but that
to take away right liberty the citizen they
must the return show that they, committed In the
exercise OF . Jurisdiction cenfsrred upon them by
the constitution is It TO be supposed t,ss be-
cause they have power to commit under certain Cir
cumstaDces that commitment for any cause whatever
would be justihsble! Certainly not. IL Is admitted
that the Senate have power 10 commit, under certain
circumstances bat have they in ev'ry case, and how
IL tbIs court TO judge! Only upon the return to the
writ. wher. if tn. is shown to be properly within
their juri.sicti the mmu,ent is good bur If they
have jurisdiction then 1t is jude, 81
void He thought this then, of jursiic,ion,
appeal This court had right to say wbsther the Sc
nate had jurisdiction not, and if they had
Jurisdiction then the commitment is void Thu
secoGd proposition. Mr.. Bradley said, required O
argument because il the fret wer q rue ou- tn n thu
follow ed matter 81 In support the
third proposition, Mir read from the case OF Ran
dolph, 10 Brocksnsroughs repors. And fro the opiu
ion or Judge Marshall he read to the eject that the
court upon habeas errpu' has right TO euQure whe
ther the party committed aud coming before
appears the return to ne cubj-ct properly Within
the Jurisdiction of the party comm, ing him. Tbs tho
court said the question for them {, d'cit-; and
entiti-d to dischsrgs. Ne~, sid Mr. Bradley, the
case before IS. that Mr. Nugsrt committed Tor
not shoS that in the subject matter upon Viii h the
S-nete had summoned him before them the Senate
had jOrisiotion II does , not appear from from, the
party before them, upon the matter in which
he !. judged guilty Of oonte@ps To make con-
the return that they had jursdc authority
institute tho proceeding which is resisted and which
resistance is judged as contempt Nov the senate
turns that party refused certain question:
and does it appear the return that they had author
ity to put the question: If not where the contempt
Again suppose the senate su umonsd man before the
and alter putting various questions, To him which he
an'were to ask him IL ne had ever the great
Mogu 1t Is called In modsro PHRASE be
the elephant and he replies that he will not answer
Are say that the Senate returning to writ Of h
that the prisoner refused to whether
he had the elephant and therefore they hsd
adjudged him guilty cs contempt h 10 be allow I'd 70
hold that prisoner without showing that they had
authority 10 the question Have the courts OF jus
tice and a~ right demand that no citizen shall b,
su,horty for 80 doing VIVA, is tn. return! It shows
that the prisoner summoned by the Ssnste witness
he cause not given) and refusing to answer certain
question judged guilty Of contempt and committed
therefor into the custody Of their officer. He put TIA.
enlisted soldier when this court in time Of
war took the custody Of the United States man
whoee for enlistment after being exam ned by
the court found to be insufficient and the man
discharged. And will the court permit civil tribunal
to and keep in II. custody American citizen,
without any power 10 compel It TO show its authority
doing when required to do soioy the Law Mr.
enumerated tn. powers Congress gveo the ccnst.
tuition and argued that they had such power
ND in this Mr. Bradley then most elcquentlv au
ded the of the habeas corpus, which h said
the constitution declared should not be suspended, bus
here the senate branch OF department of thu
and its I'm IA
your precep by setting up Its apology the INJUNCTION
The sreat writ Of habeas corpus denied b. The
action OF arbitrary secret order, OF arecre tribunal
The QUESTION ie whether there ives contempt
committed within the secret tribunal but WHISTLER they
had right to examine this witness Ia this cause within
the tribunsl And what IL he answer That the
of iueticr have right 70 perc. the veil of secEeci