The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-01-16
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.

WASHINGTON. Jan. 10, 1875.
THIS being private bill day. the SPEAKER pro-
ceeded TO call the committees Tor bills OF private
character.
THE NEW ORLEANS INQUIRY.
Mr.. G. F. HoAR, (rep.) OF Mass, from the Select
Committee Outrages in the Southern States,
presented the repor: or the subcommittee which
had been sent To New Orleans, and stated at the
same time that the committee had voted to pro-
coed forthwith to the State OF louisiana to Con-
tinue the investigation.
The report was ordered TO pe printed. but was
not read.
THE IRWIN HABEAs CORPUS CASE.
Mr.. DAWES again brought before the House the
habeas co rpus proceedings in The case OF Richard
b. IRWIN, the recusant witness in the Pacific Man
investigation, and informed the House that Judge
Macarthur, after the reargument TO-DAY, had de-
livered an opinion insisting on the production Of
the prisoner. lie (Mr. Dawes) would not argue
the matter now, but called attention TO the follow
Ing mead note III the case OF ADelInan VS.. Booth
(2l Howard D. soy -
"W men a writ OF habeas corpus is served on q
Marshal or otner person having prisoner In GUS
tody under the authority OF the United states, It
is his duty, by proper return, to make known 10
the state Judge or Court the authority by whicn
ne holds him; but at the same time it Is his duty
not 10 obey the process of the state authority
TO obey and execute the process OF the United
states.p
He also read the opinion OF Chief Justice fancy
on the same point. He said he had no idea That
seemed TO him his plain duty. There was no in
timaton that the Judge was acting otherwise
tnan according to his convictions. lie understood
the Judges view 10 be that although the petition
for the writ OF habeas corpus might substantially
set out the TACT that the man was he'd Tor con-
tempt or the House, and that although he
willing to concede that he ought not TO go be-
mind tnat, yet tnat the petition also contained an
allegation that the PROCEEDINGS tor contempt
were OF such a character as ought not TO have re-
suited IN a commitment for contempt In other
words that the committee and the House mad put
20. Irvun me
put to him. To coDcede TO the Court right 10 re-
view the action OF the House would be TO yield up
the whole case on which the House rested--nameiy,
that the House was the sole Judge OF what con-
st.tuted a contempt
unanimously afirmed By the present supreme
Court IN case IN ID Wallace.
MT BUTLER said That the court IN that case had
Simply followed precedent, but he he'd That the
decision in the Booth case did not touch TINS
question at al. There state Court undertook to
Interfere with the Jurisdiction Of United Sta es
Court There were two separate Jurisdictions, dis
unct separate and 10 eign one undertaking to IN
terlere with the power Of the other. Here all we're
parts OF the United states The Court
United states Court He could not he accused OF
a desire TO keep TWINS lips closed TO shield
part OF The money. These persons we're not such
friends Of his az 70 MAKE him desrous OF shield
prerogative writ, not OF the KING, but OF the
izen. Tne very meaning OF the title OF tue writ
was that the BODY must DC produced.
LEGAL PORCE OF THE WRIT.
Mr.. LAwRESCE, (rep-) OF Oniv-ls not the House
the sole Judge OF tile question Oh contempt
Mr.. Notwithstanding.
Mr.. LAwRBNCE-Can our discretion In that re-
spect be revised by a Coordinate branch OF the
ROvernmenU
Mr. BUTLBR-By no means.
Mr.. LAwREscE-Inat Is what the Judge proposes
to DO.
Mr. BUTLER-No, he does not. He proposes 70
have Irwin brought before blm that ne may eX
anime and see whether the prisoner Is rlghtially
detained.
Mr. LAwRENCE-Then he proposes 10 60 back Of
! our sen cRce. ana that he cannot uos