Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-05-08

JACKSON county Mr. Brittle, hepreSSptatlFe
from Smith county; Mr. Marable, Representa-
tive from Benton and Humphreys counties; Mr.
Porter. Representative from Henry county Mr..
Dunnhway,. Representative from Bedford
county; Mr. Foster Representative from
Hamilton county: Mr.. Williams Representa-
tive from Carter county. refractory members OF
this House; and that Capt. Heydt. sergeant
alarms: be authorized to employ such assist
anee as may be necessary 70 carry into effect the
orders Of this body; and that said Capt. Heydt.
as sergeant -at-arns bring said members before
this House. 20 answer for their conduct and con-
tempt of this House >"
And whereas, Capt. Hsydt. as special
sergeant arms. through persons properly
authorized did proceed, and did arrest P.
| Williams, Representative from Carter county,
in obedience to said order Of said House Of Rep
resentstires snd nov retains him IN custody
and whereas, z writ of kabeas corpus has been
sued out before His Honor, Judge Frazier, Of
the Criminal Court Of Dsvidsoa county, md
served upon Cspt. Hsydt commanding bin 70
appear before him, with the body OF said P.
| Williams, Representative from Carter; there
Resolved by the House of Representatives
| That we do respectfully, but most emphatieally,
| deny the jurisdiction of said Criminal Court in
the premises, and the authority of said court TO
interfere in the discipline and organization offhe
| House of Representatives aud direct Capt. |
Heydt, as sergeant-at arms, to tender this reso
| luton to His Honor, Judge Frazier, rs his re-
turn to said writ; and, furthermore. that Capt. |
| Heydt be directed to continue under arrest, all
members detained by him, under said resolution. |
| until otherwise ordered by this House.
| Adopted July IT, 1866
a true and correct copy of the original. now |
| on file with my papers. ED. H. GowEN,
! ''P. c. of the Fl. of r." |
Upon the retara of said Heydt, the counsel of |
said Williams moved respondent. as udge afors |
said for an attachment for contempt, for the |
| body of said Heydt, because of his failure and |
refusal TO bring before the court the body of said
/ Williams. and claim to base their right to the |
motion and for the attaehment. upon the follow |
| ing sections OF the Code of Tennessee:
| Sec. 3T54. Disobedience of the original writ |
/ or any subsequent order thereon, subjeets the |
defendant TO commitment for contempt, and also |
/ to forfeiture Of one thousand dollars to the |
party aggrieved, besides rendering him liable for |
| oil damages sustained in consequence Of such |
disobedience.
Sec. S755 The attempt 10 elude the service of
the writ Of hateas corpus, or to avoid the effect
thereof, by transferring the plaintiff to another
| or by coneealing him. IS high msdemeanor.
| for which the guilty person, and any one know
l ingly aiding or abetting him therein, shall be
| hned on conviction, not more than one thousand
| dollars, and imprisonment not more than one
year"
The motion was, by respondent as Judge
aforesaid, refused for the time. and until coun-
| sci upon both sides could be heard by respond
| ent, upon the questions of law involved that
while respondent might. under the law, have re-
fused TO receive said return, he induced TO
delay the issuance OF the writ of attachment for
contempt. through courtesy to the members of
the House, and because he felt no sympathy for
the petitioner, Williams, believing that he had
acted in bad faith IN refusing to meet the other
members Of said House. He induced the coun-
sci efSaid Williams not TO press their said mo-
ton, and tacitly consent that he be retained in
custody, absent from the court, until respondent
after hearing the argument, should determine
the law and the two succeeding days were de-
voted by respondent to bearing the arguments
and authorities Of counsel upon both sides; and
after an impartial investigation of the cause and
consideration of the arguments, having been ac-
tuated throughout with an honest desire to at
tain ard arrive at the law of the case. on the
evening of the fourth day, he delivered the fol-
lowing as his decision upon the petition
DECISION OF JUDGE FRAZIER.
The question before the court has been argued
by the counsel. on both sides, with much earn
estneSs and ZEAL and may say, with great learn
ing and ability, and they have been listened to
by the court with deep attention and interest |
and doubtless the court has been materially aid
ed IN coming to a conclusion upon a subject in
volVing not only the liberty of the citizen, but.
in some degree, the nicely balanced powers Of
the several departments ofthe State gov ernment |
The writ Of hGBeas corpus has been looked
upon by the American people as one of the chief
safeguards of personal liberty, and by the con-
stitutioE and lava of this state IL 10 Ut de-
manded By every citizen as a maitos Of fiEht -.
and no court is permitted TO refuse it In any
case. except where the applicant is detained by
the process of the courts of the United States,
or when the applicants petition shows no grounds
upon which, by law, relief could be granted.
Upon the hearing ofthe application, if it is mani
fest to the court that the applicant is illegally
restrained of his liberty, the court is bound to
discharge him but if it appears that he is legal
ly restrained. the writ should be dismissed. The
petition in this case substantially alleges, that
the petitioner. Pleasant Williams, is a citizen of
the State that he is member ofthe Representa-
tive branch of the Tennessee Legislature; that
on the 2Sth of May last said LepisIature adj
iourned, to meet again on the first Monday of
November next; that since said adjournment
the Governor, by proclamation, has convened
or attempted to convene, said Legislature that
no quorum had been obtained in the House, and
that less thar a quorum of the House had passed
g resolution authorizing the defendant, Heydt,
as sergeant at-arms to bring petitioner, with
other absent members, TO the House of Repre-
sentatlves, to answer for their disorderly con-
Arrns an1a Ao.s~ r1..N.,
the defendants, Heydt and Frames, arrested
petitioner, carried him from his home, in
Carter county, to Nashville where they now hold
him prisoner; that said arrest anG impris0n-
ment is Illegal, and prays to be released. Upon
the petition, writ issued and was executed on
the defendant, Heydt, requiring him to bring the
fore the court; and 10 this the defendant, Heydt,
by his attorney, and without producing the body
Of the petitioner. presented his return, which.
in substance, states: That by virtue of reso-
luton Of the House of Representatives, direct |
ing him, as sergesnt-at-arms, to bring the petit
tioner. with other absent members, to the House.
and warrant issued thereon. by the Speaker,
he had arrested the petitioner, and brought him
to Nashville and to the House of Representa- |
tiYesi and that since the service of said writ.
said House of Representatives had passed
another resolution directing him to keep the
prisoner and not produce him to the court, as |
required by said writ.
THE necessity for the production of the pri-
sioner in court, as an indispensable part of the
return. being waved for the present. let US pro-
d.
House of Representatives and the warrant of
the Speaker as alleged in the return, is a legal
and sufficient authority to the defendant Heydt
for tbs arrest and detention Of the prisoner. In
examining this question the court has been SEN |
sibly impressed with the delicacy Of its position
and the magnitude of the issue involved. The
decision of the question either way, has been
represented by counsel as involving the most |
serious consequence, not only to the whole
country but even TO the court itself Whatever |
the consequences of the decision may be- they |
have had, and can have, no influence on the
mind of the court, except so far as they may
have tended to aid in the proper construction of
the law involved in the question. The legal ex-
istence of the present State government and its
several coordinate departments is not denied
neither is the right and power Of the Executive
TO convene the Legislature in extraordinary sss-
sion. by his late proclamation, seriously cOntrn-
verted. But II Is insisted by the counsel for the
petitioner, that as he is member of the Legis-
lature, by virtue of the 18th section of the
2nd article OF the constitution OF the State, |
he is absolutely privileged from arrest,
during the session HOf the Legislature. and
whilst going to and returning from, the same:
and hence his arrest and detention is illegal and
void, being in direct violation Of express pro
vision OF the constitution. From the twelfth
section Of the same artice Of the constitution. it
will be seen that the Legislature. when duly or
gRnized. and sufficient number present to
transact business, had the power 10 determine
the rules of its proceedings and punish its mem
bers for discrdeyly behaviour; and from the
construction given by Congress to a provision of
the constitution Of the United States, nearly I
similar in language to the said thirteenth section
OF the second article OF the constitution of this
State. as shown and declared by the thirty-sixth
rule adopted by the House of Representatives |
for their government. il seems clear that this
privilege or exemption from arrest was intended
only 10 protect the member from arrest by other
persons OF authorities, outside Of and discOn-
nected with the Legislature itself: and the Le-
gislature, when duly assembled and qualified 10
transact their regular business, could arrest
lawfully, any one Of its members for dis,rderly
conduct. But it Is further insisted taat the
House OF Representatives has never been or
ganized under the prOclamatio Of the Governor.
or nj least that 10 never has had quorum or a
sufficient number Of its members present 10
transact any business except 90 adjourn from
day 20 day and that the resolution, under which
the petitioner was arrested was passed without n
quorum, and is void and can afford no protection
to the defendant In answer TO this, il is insisted
by the counsel for the defendant. that the court
has no jurisdiction right 10 inquire into or de-
eide upon the acts Of the begislature, and par
ticularly when these acts are in relation to one
Of ifs own members that such action OF the
court would produce conflict between the le-
gislative and Judicial departments Of the gov
eminent. IL Is cheerfully and readily conceded
that the courts have no right or authority 10 in
teriere with the Legislature in the regulation Of
its own body, or the punishment Of its members,
in any manner they may see st. when il Is once
organized as legislative body snd Il Is far
ther admitted. that il ic always 3 delicate and
unpleasant task for the court 20 decide any law,
resolution or other act Of the LeTialafure 70 be