Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1875-01-15
IRWIN'S BODY.
The Habeas dareus COu,royersx-
h". n h.LHCR DECIDES THAT IRWIN
AIsI LIE RRni-l.III INTO f.AI-ur

DO A r. h.IHUR DECIDES THAT IRWIN
h.ei -sE BROUGHT INTO COURT.
~, iIn ~ n-orning. in the Criminal Court room
uT IL rther hearing of the habeas corpus case
OF x. b. Irwin, the recusant Pacific Mail wit
.le>s. was resumed by Judge eMacArthur-tle
Norwood Hahn homicide case having been
suspended.
At II O'Clock the court room was crowded,
and the counsel for the respondent, (MpSSrs.
Fisher and Shellabarger} with Mr.. 0rlwav
APPEARED, as also the counsel for the petit
uOner-MesSrs. DuraHt, Moore, and Culver.
THE RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSE
AT 11.20 a. m. Mr.. Sheilabarger read the
communication OF Mr.. Ordway To the House
OF Representatives, asking further fnStruc-
tiOus. and the resolution of the House ..that
The prisoner is duly held by authority of the
House OF Representatives in proceedings
against him for contempt"
Mr.. Shellabarger further said that under
the resolution the return should not be ac-
companIed by the prOduc lion of The petition
ef- They had asked yesterday 10 show that
petent tribunal, and they were now prepared
70 show that the supreme Court of the United
states had decided that il was moi necessary
10 produce the body of the petitioner.
Mr.. Iurant said that his understanding of
The resolution was contradictory 10 that OF
MT: Sheilabarger. He claimed that the resO-
luton did not authorize any other return
man The customary returns 10 a habeas cor
puS.
The Court said that if the counsel desired
TO REOPEN THE CASE
they could do SO.
Counsel then filed motion to revoke the
writ, and Mr.. Shellabarger commenced his
argument; claiming that the writ was inn
prOVldtntiy issued. nor can the custody at
the body be asSailed.
Mr.. Durant followed Mr. Sheilabarger. con-
tendlng for the petitioner that the resolution
OF congress simply meant that the sergeant
alarms should make a careful return i'm the
ordinary mode, and that il implied that the
petitioner should be produced.
Judge Fisher followed for the respondent.
Mr.. Ordway.
DECISION OF THE COURT
Judge Macarthur proceeded to give his de-
ciSlOn, IN which he said that the power O!
congress To punish for contempt is not 10 i,,,
questioned; but the motion to revoke the writ
because OF 1mpTOVidence must fail. for the
petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the
House. The usage from time immemOri II
has been for the bo1y to go with the writ.
Inc law says that the officer 10 whom the
writ is directed
MUST PRODUCE THE BODY
ana make return within five days. 1t is the
imperative duty of the officer to comply with
the law. He regretted that the House of Rep
resentatiVes should take a different view
lhe statute leaves him no discretion. While
congress has proper SensitiveneSS as to its
privileges, statutory law is greater than priv
liege, and he would not infringe one ten-fhOu-
Sandth part of the diameter of a hair upon il.
As the law binds him ne could not decide
otherwise. and ne trusted that the law won 4
bc complied with in some form. The rplatOr
the writ.
CONSULTATION.
some minutes were spent by the counsel in
consuitatlon, and Judge Macarthur asked
what course they intended To pursue.
Mr.. Shellabarger said that they were in n
peculiar condition; that the relatOr deemed il
ms duty to obey the House of Representa-
tlNes; lie suggested that time be given.
Judge Macarthur said perhaps a few hours
would aid them; and postponed further pro-
ceeulngs until one O'Clock tomorrow.