Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-03-29
Debate and Action I'm HaIiet XII.

amendment restoring the salary OF the min
isie1 10 Italy to $1,000 was oOncurrsd In by s.
Debate and Action I'm Hatret EtI.
bourns Case
HOuSE.-After our report closet
Debate was continued on the resolution Of
Mr.. Glover, directing the Sergeant-at-A Arms
Lot 10 deliver up Hallet kiibourn on the
oench warrant issued by the Supreme Court
OF the District OF Columbia.
Mr.. New (Indl made an elaborate arsu-
ment, reviewing the entire case, aud claim
ing that the House was the higher authority
and bad the right OF custody OF the prisoner
until the expiration of the present Congress
He quoted at great lenGth authorities end
presidents, including the case OF Richard r.
Irwin, In which the direct issue OF custody
had been made and the right OF the House
sustained.
Mr Kasson said there was no doubt that
the House had authority by law, by prece-
dent ard by everything that was authority.
But the re were two points on which his mi ~
tad bsen uoD BLEED from the beginning. one
war tEat there were DO settled rules tast de
IeTnined upon what subjects the House had
Jursoiction. The first question under this
VAS shall the House take from the courts
the settlement of the case OF bankruptcy Of
lhr I'm of Jay Cooke 4 Co. He could MOI
dtny the right OF the House TO inquire into
the SctiCn of the ASST gnee or even OF The court
Tor q at might lead TO Impeachment, hut
with n" allegation OF wrong doing by the
curt, he could but fear that there was more
obnger OF wrOfg 10 the private citizen than
g, d To the state. The second point was
lie law, presented the case 20 the court, aud
the House was Low placed in the position OF
Withholding by the act OF one House prevent
| lpg The law from executing the law prcScrib-
ed by two Houses.
Mr.. Hoar asked IL IL did not amount 10 a
mere question OF time.
Mr. KaSson said IL did not. for ifihis House
Kept him Till the close of It's term the next
| House could take him up, and. on his refusal
TO answer, keep him m custody, thereby de-
| ieatiDg the court OF the power OF punisniug
| him. lie cited the case OF John W. Walcptt,
| who, In the Thirty nth Congress, placed in
| jail under precisely similar circumstances.
was, on resolution Offered by Alexander
| IL. stephens, by a vote of i35 TO ~. turned
over 10 the courts for trial, and said with
| such precedent as that the House should go
| with caution and hesitate how IL set the Will
| OF one House against the deliberate enact
ments of the two Houses.
Mr.. Hurlbut (IndD asked leave TO offer the
| following substitute, and Mr.. Glover de-
clined 10 allow ii. The substitute is as fol-
lows:
Reso,rod, That the Sergeant alarms he
| directed TO deliver Hallet kilSourn, now In
| his custody for contempt OF the House, 20 the
| marshal OF the District OF Columbia, to be
tried by the proper legal tribunal for the
| oiiense under which he stands indicted.
| Mr.. Hooker Miss did lot See the serious
| aspect of the case portrayed by Mr.. Kassoa.
| The House had already adJudged the case,
| and the sentence pronounced by Il was being
| carried out, aud IL was not competent for
| another tribunal To take the criminal from
| such punishment for trial through wnich he
|
| by authority of the House. Suppose the
| prisoaer was surrendered and tried, aud the
| jury acquit him, the whole power OF the
House 10 punish for contempt would be
| COLE, and il would be powerless 10 compel
the attendance OF witnesses or enforce Its
| own authority. II the power was given TO
tie courts 10 take witnesses from the custody
| OF the House, the inquiries and investlga-
| lions would at once drop, and any contu
| cious witness could defy its power.
| Mr.. Glover withdrew his objection to the
1 hist N nj ~ y frrl1 hut md
! was considered as pending.
Mr.. Cox IN. W said that II did lot follow
| that because under the rules the Speaker
| certified the case 10 the District court, that
| il could lake the case from the House. Ii
| might take cognizance OF IL after the House
| had surrendered its jurisdiction, but IL could
| rot sUpplant the power OF the House. He re-
1erred TO the case of Irwin, and charged Mr..
| kasson with Inconsistency, In then denying
| The power OF the court and raising the ques
| ton now.
| Mr.. Kasson said that in the Irwin case the
| Indictment had not been found.
| Mr. Cox said that was nothing. IL they
| pOs they could set eside a mere warrant. lie
| then proceeded to quote Messrs. Dawes, l..
| X Hoar and others, on the Irwin case In
support Of the authority OF the House.
| Mr.. HOar Mass argued tina The power OF
| the House 10 punish for contempt was pre-
| cisely the same as that of the court, with the
| power To revise or revoke sucn sentence at
| any time, and ending with the session OF
| Congress. He denied that any statute could
| Deprive the HouSe OF the power 10 punish for
contempt, which IL constltutionally held,
ard that nothing but n constitutional amend
ment could take IL away. He argued that the
dignity of the House should be maintained,
AID the presidents established should be fol
lowed without any reference 10 political
parties.
Mr. McCrary said when the case was origin
ally presented, IL struck him a very grave
lid serious question, aud had IL oeeu dis
| cussed, he was not sure that he should have
voted 10 send him To jail; out the action n al
been taken and he had been ajjudged guilty
of contempt, and be was now in jail bS order
| OF the House. After this act by the House IL
was grave question whether IL would be
| safe to concede that witness so held should
be turned over 10 another tribunal Foe
| statute had nothing TO do with the case. Ii
punished for q crime, while the power Of the
House applied to the offeuse OF contempt. Ii
| might occur at the close of the session, when
| the House had power only To punish for
| day or an hour. In such q case the punish
ment by the court could be made additional.
! In the case OF Irwin the court had refused To
release him ON writ OF hd1edS corpus, thus
sustaining the power OF the House.
Mr.. Garfield (Ohio) quoted the fourth ar
ticle of the Constitution, protecting the per-
son, books, papers. and effects of private cit
liens from uni easonabe seizure and search
only upon probable suspicion, and asked II,
primarily, there had been probable ground
on which the House had acted. Had not the
witness said that II any one would show any
probable ground for demanding the proiuc-
ton Of his books, or for his testifying, he
would do SO. H2d not the actlo0 ratner been
of the nature OF throwing out drag net to
see what could be found. He had never in
his experience seen SO unwise course pur
sued by the House as had been taken In the
first steps In relation TO this witness. The
others had followed as q conseQ uence. III
might be that IL was now too late TO go back,
but he coulu not but think the early steps
were uBwise.
Mr.. Tucker (Va. maintained that the pow
or of the House was supreme, and cited Du-
meTous presidents. lie held that the power
Of the House over the witness termi mated
with The present session of Congress, because
after the adjournment the witness might be
willing TO answer, and there would be no one
10 answer TO.
Mr. Garfield asked where, under the almest
CmnipOieDt power of The House. was the pro-
lection guaranteed by the fourth article of
the Constitution to be had.
Mr.. Tucker replied that he denied the som
nipotent" of the House, and then proceeded
To argue that the witness was in the position
of one who had In q court refused TO ans yer
what the court had decided 10 be a proper
question. AT this stage of the proceeding IL
was quite too late to raise the question,
| much less 10 discuss It. The gentlssn an
should have raised his voice when the wit
ness was before the House. III the House
says to-day that Mr.. Ktlbourn cannot play