New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-05-24
THE RIGHTS OF WITNESSES.

THE RIGHTS OF WITNESSES
TEST CASE IN NAssACHUsETTs-TH sHpREME
COURT LIBERATES LEGISLATIVE PRIHEER.
The Legislature of Massachusetts BASED
law meet the supposed necessities Of the reef nyes
legations into the affairs OF the State COnstabary, by
which witnesses could be compelled to give evidence
against themselves. The law provided that such ey.
denoo should not be used against the witnesses In
cases which might afterward arise. Thi5 law has
been tested by the habeas corpus OF Major
Henry Emery Of Lowell who was se'1enced
by the Senate TO % days Imprisonment In county jail.
for the contempt of that body In refusing TO answer GER
tain questions prOpOunded By the Joint Special Com
mitee on the State Police. In the Supreme Court on
Monday last Judge Wells rendered decision The re-
fusa OF Mayor Emery on the ground that, under
Article OF the Bill of Rights, he could not be compelled
to accuse or furnish evidence against himself.
Judge Wells first adverted to the question OF ball.
holding that during the tendency OF the habeas corpus
proceedings tine custody or the prisoner was within tho
discretion OF the Court, who eoid AUNT MN W c JAIL
and 10 this special authority VIII Nhlch inc CouIt
S5d been eseresed thus far Alter referring the
action OF the Senate in the matter Judge Neils sad
that not c0ntended that the answer OF Ihe 10,
spopdeut was made otherwise than IN sOOd altn aud
the principal questions to be considered were Whethef
ing the questions of the Legislative C0mlnlttee'
and whether he had been deprived OF inc nsht wnc.
the Constitution guaranteed. That any person eOmmtsd
nv the Legisature had right to be heard before tho
Spreme Court was well settled in the case OF Burnham
f6e twelfth article of the Bin of Rights, that Tho could
not be compelled to accuse or furnish evidence aghss
ali inquistorial bodies, and it was reasonable 70
suppose that 1t was intended TO project Rars.e e
them, and from the results or their admis-
in New-York where the Constitution was less explicit
than in Massachusetts, III which the courts hau heiu
himself or to testify where evidence resulting from his
admissions could DO used against HIM IN any suD5eq1e
proceedings In considering whether tho provisions Of
the Constitution applied the Legislature the Judge
said that there was nothing to exempt that body
from its application such tribunals could not
disregard tho protection which the Constitution
afforded its subjects, without FUZZY securing witnesses
from all liability prosecution thereafter and as ta
Legislature could not by any formal enactment compel
"a party to testify before OF its Committees, wherein
the rights OF the party were not protected AZ provided
that it could be done by mere order Of one Of IL
branches LII the power was allowed the Legislature W
compel witnesses 10 disclose testimony without giving
them protection guaranteed by the Constitution IL
might he easily perverted into securing material Tor Iar
nishng prosecutions before Grand Jures In answer W
the argument OF the AttorneyGenera, that Parliament
had passed laws compelling parties To disclose evidence
the Judge said that the reason OF this because
Parliament potent TO the common law, Dut hefs
the Constitution potent 10 all law, ana the Legis-
Iature WAS regulated by its rules in the same man
ner as was the Judicial departments OF sOvernmenh
He then considered the law passed by The Legsla-
tnre on the stu OF March, and said that 1t must he
Intellectual for the purpose OF pr0seCThS S MtseS re-
sntinp from their admissions 1t undertook TO secure
them against certain prosecutions py tAe use "a to
answers but t did not go far enough SO as 70 renese
them from the liability OF prosecution, resulting ln-
rnctlv from surh admissions Under these circumstances
the law had failed to deprive the prisoner OF MS constr
utiona privilege and when he refused 10 answer ths
Questions put he in the exercise OF Ms con-
sLtutional right ana had committed no contempt towar
the Senate In THESE views Tie fun Court cOhcuired.
and he should therefore discharge the prisoner Whcn
was accordingly done.
When the Sergeant-at-Arms made report tha' Emery
had been discharged by order OF the Supreme Court the
Senate acquesced in the mandate by ordering lAat ON
Ger TO return without service other warrants Issued "'
the arrest OF other eontumaeious witnesses
The Boston Post, referring to Judge Weiss decision
says: -,
1.-THE decision il highly gratifying. as well as odn a
ton OF individual rights by LegislauYe p2lnrrvvyIS
that it, is high time the courts declared the IyLy
of the citizen to mean something. Az hH'niit
TON we have seen tho private mes Vi VIZ
0raphc correspondence pluudeItd, b.iuA aS eoua5~
fnSperted aud merchants and Journalists lhluI'onou,
uutil there seemed personal lJer! ~ Als. A. ma
n lin steriug committeeman chose - cENelse ~ 80.
imitation OF these tactics ny tnc ~ thr rebuke
House showed rapid spread ol te I'l "u -, Jsision
Of The snnrer.e Court through Judge h&ls ue,l';
comes none too Ii would De 700 n%N1' - rT'sent
the Supreme Court of the \ hIltu c'L, '.s. Iit N
exists TO put slhllIai eHo'N wv
needs 10 be done. -
Tbc BorIford COurant makes comment as iO'io"''
,sTbe Massachusetts, senate undertook 70 c9iloa "a
Harry Emery TO testify in the lIoc,t',1 -, 49,, haiI
arainst fbe State COnstabulary h0 N' ny ~ aecr
10 await action OF the SapIenlc .C'i' All vst the
10y TnStod STATES SENATE have an IDEA mat u. ~
can legally imprisOn ne ne"spaa 'g,,,,art Of ths
refuse 10 testify concerning tHJ Iseit, ~.
Jre,tv for publication. Untss u" a.
IIoy curl is altogether ont In its ruling ana c0nst
lion OF the law OF personal Iisls .no rt sv YORK
troubc by prosecuting Mesars Mit.e VI - ey,iL
stn,nIINE and RamsGen Of The CncsnhGH CON"'"'''''
for these state aud Federal cases are sIdi"eo"'