New-York tribune., 1871-06-01


can stand discussion before court OF sco" no
you arrive at such poweri The Senator rom WScon
corng to the arguments OF certain Senator'S has not he
power Of justice OF the peace The senator never
the peace justice OF the peace Is court Witn .ue
powers of court The Senate OF the United STATES @
not a court except In the cases TO which nave hIea
referred 1t lis serious question whether II Is court IA
the proceeding which it has seen III 10 lnsttue.
Wsconsn might be appcab and might then claim
the privileges of court might proceed y3 PeaSg
IN fine ns well as commit The Senate IN s scrctlon
forbears 10 fine 1t contents itself with imprisonment;
But If 1t imprison, why not fnei Why Is not 'H'
whole catalogue of punishment open 10 lts grasp ,u
have reminded You, Sir, that our powers "J ~
they may be- under written CONSTITUTION anu tbn m
powers the House Of Commons, which are lhe t
Of tradition and mmemoral Isagsi Iday am nHI asserted
In most authentic judgments, to whlch Deg " can 0
Mr. HoWE"wili the Senator allow to inquire OF
him whether understood him. when expresslng aoupi
OF our power to commit Witness to claim that We nau
Mr.. sUMNER"No did not. said that the Senate
had not the powers Of justice OF the peace. ,,,
i have in my hands the fourth volume OF Moore,s
Prvy Council Cases, cases argued In the flvy Cocii
of England many Of them being cases that have come
from the supreme Court Of the island OF NeWf0undah
vii will ea Tesd Of ts Soeabg marEn oe n Of Nundd does pos
legal incident e poT,I Of 1. H5Tes T @ o ysw & S% as a1e
for the proper exercise Of its functions and duties
ap:c Of ce%ng1. I .S 1 RSE'Pf PSp.era Sp ny TGs
mJE-T6e Crown by It's prerogve cses Legislative AS
mby in settled colony subordinate Parliament but with supreme
sS.' sSs;T s. sAn the limits Of colony ''''''
Qne-wheher it bestov II authority namely that Of
committing for contempt not incidental to bylaw.
will not take time III reading extracts from the opn-
ion Of the court which the ground that the Leg
isature of the colony acting under charter from me
Crown, in the nature OF constitution being writer
these vast, immense, unknown privileges anu preroga
tves which by long usage are recognized as 70
the House Of Commons. But the question was pre-
sened later day in another case before the fVy
Council, which came from the supreme court OF & van
land \ cifa aunVM
volume H. This case was decided in 1883 IL u @ hhere
fore recent ahory he mafga a1 note S s 10 the
House Of Lords Commons England and is not conferred
I agn Of the COMMON ,a England Sio colony
& SS e@ @ %ss ao power derived S S
created under the authority Of act d 1s "B, Ga@n M
You will see Sir that by this decision the powers OF
legislative assembly created by charter are Limited 10
ne grants OF the charter and that the creation OF
the legislative body carry with il the lazy ana
Lord Chief Baron Pollock uses the following language
Abiding a former decison he says ot the court:
part q and the existence @ 81 t9ii
iSs We aS. are bound The decision Kes ns caoH
the Legislative Council Of Van DieTeg. Land cannot claim the
ng supreme legislative authority which they undoubtedly
they cannot claim under the statute as B1 81 s n e
e colony b. George w. % sec sso r. cr! The sn5 % coSmog Of hi,
country and DO rot apply to toe supreme Ls,tGe Of colony Oy the
NOw tine question is directly presented by these de-
cisions whether, under the written text OF the Cons
tion of United States, can fngrat upon our IN
stitutions the law and custom OF Parliament 30 lr as
these cases applicable, they decide in the negative;
but will press them To that extent. adduce them
for more moderate purpOse-smply 10 put the SENATE
matter do not undertake to say to what extent the
Senate may go, but with these authorities warn III
against proceeding any doubtful practices III theIe
be any doubt then do these authorities cry out 10 you 10
CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS.
Ihaye said, Sir that powers here are limited by
the Constitution may add, also and the law in pursu-
ance OF the Constitution And now ask you to show
me any text Of the Constitution and to show me any text
OF law which authorizes the detention OF these witnesses
by the Senate. The Senate be it understood. is not
court Certainly for this purpose and on this occasion,
il is not court Show me the law Does it exlStf III
exists learned Senator can point 1t ont but while
Senators fail to point out any law sanctioning such pro
cedure point our an lmmOrtal eAt III lne CosiitutIh
OF the United States, borrowed from Magma Charta,
which it is difficult to disobey; ,.,..
crime, unless preentr ent or Indictment Of gran ury
nor W6nt due 81 I process Ss5 OF WHAT the meaning
Of that anguargei Judge story tells US, as follows;
or @ mept and bein! S to thereto by due process.
the common law So that esect am !he night thal
There SIR. IS living text 6f the constitution Of the
United states binding upon this Senate Where do you
ceedne; or If you institute the proceeding, it not
come within the nmat9ns Of this this prohibition o
many preccdeuts are there for such prOceedingi We
because he refused to testify before the Harper's
ThS yon are PoScd fo oa% am @ sure You would
If you read the weighy arguments in that proceed
ing made by the late John A. Andrew and samuel f.
sewel of Massachusetts, the accomplished jurist who
sti survives to US. Go still further back ana yOu have
the entirely like that before us, OF Nuent who was
not pursued was going to say, as teoei0usy as the
present witnesses have been pursued for his custody
was simply that OF the house OF the Sergeantat-Arms
and it recognized at that time that even that mild
custody would expire with the session OF the senate
You have also the earlier precedent OF 1900 in the case OF
Duane, which, think, senators would hesitate now TO
vindicte. Let them look at 1t and see whether they
would sanction similar proceeding AT TINS day whether
such tyranny could without shocking the public
conscience aud being recognized universally as an
sault upon the liberty OF the press.
Those the furnished by the history OF the
Senate Lord Denman in the case Of stockale vs. Han
sard the famous to which have referred gives an
answer to them as follows Iquote from the ninth vol
uIne OF Adolphus and Eliss Reports, page l55: 49,
practice ng power the State is but feeble proof o. its
pSs before the night By IamPen general
been issued and enforced of centuries before they questioned In
procured their condemnation and abandonment spprehend
this subject proves N the h pce TOO much 10Y
admitted aud gosset abuses OF privilege have never been Questioned
This proceedng has analogy with one well known in
English history that Of the Star Chamber Court which
Won will find described by Mr.. Halum in his COnSttu-
tonal History Of England in chapter eight, and refer
to merely for the sake OF single sentence which
cite from this great author: ,,,,,
where is the legal authority for the imprisonment
ton-the merest inference; but surely will not take
away the liberty Of the citizen ON any such shadowy,
evanescent apology which no apology but only sham
and nothing else have already called attention TO the
argument OF Gov. Andrew and the Hon. ;. j.. Sewel,
which viii be found i'll Ihe Congressional GLOBE under
date OF March Q, 1860 Did time permit, should quote
from at length but commend 1t to the Senate and all
inquirers;; -, .,,o ,ou,. ,,io,, or,i.or .,,.
question: call attention to the case OF sanborn agt
Carleton Q5 Gray's Rep, $780, where ChiefJustce Shaw
OF gave ths % opinion OF & the GO Court The
his character After stating that lit admitted in the