Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-05-08
NO. l4O.

anything IN relation 10 the rules Of the Heuse
| but he did know that a rule of the House was n
law, unless It had been passed by both House
| IN the constitutional way lie admits that
/ knaw that il was one of the rights and priviIees
I Of all duly assembled legislative bodies to pas
| laws 10 enforce the attendance Of absent mem
hers but be did not know, that less numbe
| than quorum could pass lotos for tkat parpose
/ Respondent admits, that be issued the writ ate
| deiioeratiou. wilfully but he again denies tha
/ 4 was issued either corruptly OF maiiciously O
| feionlonsiy, as IS 50 often charEed. lt ia sub
stantlaliy admitted. ia the staFting point of Oh,
/ first article OF impeachment, that there was nt
quorum Ia the House AZ the time Williams wa
arrested. or at the time tae resolution for hi.
arrest Nas passed; and respoRde. aSSel ts that he
/ dl0 not know that = less number Of members
than quorum possessed the privileges Of a daily
| organized House Of Representatives. lie denies
that be had any intent. or desire, TO interfere
with their privileges and asserts that If be had
known of any law. obligatory usage. or custom,
l by Whsch the members, less than quorum
were authorized to arrest any abssnt member.
merely foT Absence, he would have refused the
writ feEp0naent most positively denies. that
he BAD any desire. intention, of defeating the
FIssepce Of a quorum in the House and the fact
that be permitted the members and their agent
HeYdf to hold Williams in custody for nearly
or quite. three days. while his case was being
argued and deliberated upon by respondent,
shows that respondent had no such intent for
during that time. IS respondent is informed and
believes. a quorum was obtained in the House.
and the constitutional amendment was duly
ratified BY the House long before the said VIII
liams was discharged under the writ. Respon-
dent, further answering. admits. that after hear
ing the argument of counsel on both sides. and
after examining all the authorities produced or
which he could find aud after giving the ques-
tion full candid. and deliberate consideration.
he was honestly Of the opinion, that the return
made by the said VIM. Heydt, to the writ. was
insufficient aud presented no sufficient legnl
grounds for the arrest and detention Of said
Williams, and 80 decided. Respondent. further
E..Na- = 81 Il. a
upon the return made to the writ, was legal and
right that there is no law. custom, or parlia-
mentary usage in Tennessee, under which the
arrest of Williams can be justified. By reference
to the sth section ofthe bill Of rights Of Tennes-
see as set out before il will be seen that il is there
emphatically declared. That no free man shall
be taken. or imprisoned. or deprived of his life,
liberty. or property, but By The Judgment Of his
peers or the law of the land" From this il
would seem, that before man can be arrested
there must be some iGig authorizing IT, II sure
ly cannot be done at the mere will of one or
more men. The failure. or even refusal Of
amember Of the Legislature 70 attend, is snowhere
declared to be a crime. In the FIRST article of
impeachment, the arrest OF Williams is attempt
ed to be justified under the llth and 18th sec
tiOns of the second article OF the constitution.
In those two sections, il is seen that twO-thirds
of each House shall constitute quorum 20 do
business but n smaller number may adjourn
fron day 20 day; and that smaller number may
be authorized. bB folc. to compel the attendance
OF absent members. Now. il is submitted, that
M fair on rational construction Of these proyi-
sons. could mean more than. that q less number
than two-thirds could execute or enforce any
law that might be enacted for that purpose. The
18th section provides fer the making Of reles BY
each House. for the government Of the House in
its mode OF proceeding, and for Furnishing its
members for disorderly behavior; the two sec
tions taken together. making an obvious dis
tinction between absence and disorderly conduct;
ia the latter ease, it authorizes each HOuse-that
is, when there Is quorum present-to punish,
Nkas,r fInrl n . fnr aAe
neither House. separately, can punish for it, or
enforce the attendance; but the attendance
must be compelled. or enforced, by virture of
authority derived from both Houses. via: by
law duly passed BY both Houses for that pur-
pose II Is different as to the two Houses Of
Congress. under the constitution Of the United
States. By the first article and htth section Of
the constitution of the United States, il Is pro-
vided, that a majority of each House shall eou-
stitute quorum to do business; but q smaller
number may adjourn from day to day, and may
be authorized to compel the attendance OF abb
sent members not by law, as in Tennessee, but
by rule Of each or either of the Houses. or by
resolution of a majority, or by any other mode
that either House may adopt. And under
this provision Of the constitution, a rule was
adopted by the House Of Representative
enforcing the attendance Of members by arrest
but even under that rule. fully authorized by
she constitution, the absentlng member was re-
leased from custody so soon IS he was brought
into the House doubtless under the rational
e5nFtctior thlL. N q representative se.srnmeht.
Representation must be free. and not under du
ress Respondent further answering, states
that when said Heydt, the alleged sergeant-at-
arms, by his counsel. presented the resolution
passed by the members present, OF the House,
as return to the writ of hqbe0s corpus. he
failed, as before stated, to produce the body of
Williams as he was commanded by the writ to
do, and which Was plain and palpeble disobe-
dience of the writ. and subjected him, BY the
Laws Of Tennessee, to commitment for contempt,
to a forfeiture of one thousand dollars, and to
damages to the party aggrleyed. But, as before
stated respondent induced Williams counsel 10
waive the appearance of Williams until the
respondent could hear and determine whether
be was restrained Of his liberty by legal au
thority or not, before respondent would proceed
against said Heydt or enforce the appearance Of
Williams. And respondent admits, that after
hearing the case fully argued, and mature de-
liberation as before stated, given to the case. be
was cOnscisntiOusly of the opinion, as he Is yet.
that the causes and authority alleged in the re-
turn for the restraint OF Williams was insnth-
cient. Respondent did issue process to the
Sheriff Of Davidson county, requiring him 10
bring the body Of Heydt. as well rs OF " illlams,
before respondent, the said Heydt 20 answer for
his disObedience of the writ, and the said VIII
liams to be discharged not corruptly, mali
ciOusly and feiOniOusiy, as charged against him,
but simply, as a matter of course, 10 ehectuate
and carry out the judgment be had rendered
upon the hearing Of the cause. Respondent
further admits, that upon this writ the said
Heydt and Williams were brought before re-
spondeut. and the said Williams was discharged.
But ne most poSluNely ucuies Inai lue hhiu
Heydt was lined one cent Tor contempt, as Is
alleged in the second article of impeachment
but alleges that. to the reverse of what Is
charged. he informed said Heydt that respon-
dent was satisfied that he bad acted under
the instructions Of the members Of the
House in good faith and instead
of enforcing upon them any of the penalties pre-
scribed by the statute, respondent dischaged
him, without commitment or one cent OF tine,
merely giving judgment against him for teis dot
lars and costs which was about one half the costs
in the case, and without any order that he should
be committed till IL was paid, as Is errOneOusly
CHARGED Respondent further answering to the
charges in the second article OF impeachment,
denies that he exercised illegal power, or as
sumed unprecedented Judicial functions, in the
discharge of Williams, a. iS charged m said ar
ticle He insists that he exercised nothing but
the ordinary powers conferred upon judicial Of
ieera in like cases; and be IS unable TO perceive
how il could be considered an exercise Of illegal
power in a J udge 10 discharge a man from i'm
prisonment ii the party was illegally restrained
of his liberty. Surely this respondent, as Judge
of general jurisdiction. had this power; and the
only question Is. was he, the said " ilhams. ile-
gally restrained Of his liberty 10 he was, Il is
Insisted that il was one OF the common duties and
powers Of n Judge 10 release him II he was le
gally restrained Of his liberty, then respondent
exercised one of his ordinary powers erroneousy.
for he asserts that he exercised bls beat Judg
ment upon the question, and decided 1t az be
honestly thought the law wss. with no improper
corrupt or malicious, dishonest OF felOniOus mo-
tive az is alleged 50 repeatedly against him. II |
Is admitted that respondent released Williams |
from custody, as heretofore stated. upon an |
honest conviction that he was illegally restrained
Of his liberty and that the said Heydt was |
brought before respondent to answer Tor his dis /
obedience Of the writ Of habeos corpus. but bis /
appearance was more from form, to carry out the |
judgment rendered. than anything else, as he |
was al once discharged, without ine OF commit /
ment, or other harsh treatment, upon the pay
ment Of part Of the costs, as before stated Re-
spOndent denies that he knew that Capt. Heydt /
was ssrgeant-at-arms 70 the House Of represent |
aiives. nor did he know that any such Office ex- /
sted in Tennessee. further than in the res0lu-
rion offered. a return 70 the writ Of hGbeos Cur
pps-Capt Heydt was directed h present the /
as sespeoRf-Gf-dr Respond |
ent admits that from said resolution. pre-
iented as u return 70 the writ. he knew /
hat tGe members Of the House present, who did /
not claim 70 be a quorum, denied respondents /
Jurisdiction, upon the hubeas corpus, and that 1
hey had directed Capt. Heydi. 20 hold the Gus
IOdy Of Williams. But respondent waived all /
his and took no steps to enforce the attendance
Df Williams until the case was fally heard. az 1
before stated. Respondent admits. that be did /
srs and privileges OF the House OF Representa-
lives, ia relation 70 enforcing the attendance Of |
absent members, but he denies. that he had any |
knowledge Of the mode adopted by the members l
IN Williams' case. that was authorized BY law.
Respondent denies that he knew the H0use Of |
had jurisdiction Of Williams As |
he was informed, and 50 believed that there Wss |
30 quorum pressnt,t0 constitute a House or take |
urisdicti5n over him, OF do any other business,
except 20 adjourn.
Respondent is well aware that the present State |
government came into existence. after a pro
'racted War-and agsinstths wishes Of many per
before the time Of its existence. he,
n common with many OF his fellow citizens. had /
contributed whatever of capacity he possessed. |
much Of hls time and labor. 20 assist IN that re-