The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-05-01
VOL. XLlII.-N0. 2Sl.
THE EECrSANT KILB0URN.
,crtrr NrsrfkE nv WHICH NE
1"' ysrtprD mr. PtNIsH MENT
~. r""src.. The speaker no, Bound to
trr''n rhe UuD Remedy that IL Left.

ter"" -Tht UulS Remedy that IL Left.
.,,,rov. April 30.-rhe Kilbourn
"Ni,.,,d, q avs, en- 'ir, to the legal profess
o." sod f. B. ru--itle that II may become
"o nolit,tal question. have taken some
.1ns Ia Obtain the views ~ the leading lawyers
IN. House = representatives, on every phase |
.t,h,s c.se. and present them herewith. The |
,,w,ers ofthe create experience In the House |
oftte,uiDi that 1t will be found, on
.,,.ti examination II section lOi # the Revised |
s,,,utes. that tive Speaker Of the House Of Rep
,s.nt.tiycs Is not bound to certify recusant |
.,,pe.s 4, the District Attorney for the District
.,col,nbia until the adjournment of Congress. |
rAe language OF the section referred to Is as fol-
lows;
wienever witness summoned, as mentioned IN sec
sWSrr iuc lrc-ii,i ot the senate or the speaker
hc lluuc. The e. te may De, ,shal eerliil We iMt
srcincy io- tie bhiri,t Of coingbin whose duty It
81 tn rug the matter before The Grand Jury for
ntr action.
qhis language, ii Is claiued cannot be con
,,rued strictly. tecause it Is maniestly imper-
feet, Fvr instance, II 1t is interpreted literally
freat injustice might be done witness, for
according to the wording Of the section the in-
uAnt witness refuses to answer question
uvpoundcd to him by Committee of Congress,
be is guilty Of an offence. aud II the committee
thercuuon reports the fac's forthwith to the
~ iuse OF senate u " NV uhNf VI huO
on ,er Of the same e. certify that fact under
gA to the District Attorney. who shall bring
re matter To-, orc tbs q fani Jury. There Is no
opportunity afforded the witness to reconsider
conclusive, and leaves the orendlng party no
remedy whatever.
THE COMMON PRACTICE.
II has been the practice Of all legislative
bodies from time immemorial to bring recu.
nant witnesses to their bar, and alter a full
statement OF the facts has been made, then the
presiding officer puts the question 20 the witness,
and II he then refuses To- an -wer, the Nouse OF
Senate may In Its discretion take such order IN
the premises the law or inmemuTtal practice
authorizes. But II the language of sec. l0i Of
the Revised Statutes Is consumed strictly this
need not DE gone ~ ass 1uss ss
eannot follow tho immemotial practice. TIE
offence Of the witness Is complete, hccordi .
90 their Interpretation " the law. the instant he
refuses to answera question which comes within
abe puryiew of the resolution OF the House rals-
ing the committee and directing tho Inquiry 10
be made, provided tue wines. 10 not protected
n his refusal to answer as judge BLACK con
tsnded IN kiliourn's case. by the tlll OF rignts.
Having committed the offence, and the COM
nittee tetoic whom he was summoned having
reported the fact t. tie House, thenit becomes
she dut, Of the lc kcr to forthwith certify over
the witness To the Dist vet Attorney. IL In the
sbe question propOAnded bv the committee, lie
would have, undcr This .tli't construction OF the
haw, no 9pportumt' :" o. d.. ,
But ivis insisted on the other hand that par
hanentafy bodies have large discretionary
powers. and they would not TO bound to con-
sion, manifest injustice would be done the
witness Tnii undonutedly IS true, and
cratic lawyers Of the House Of Rep
Eesentatives clam IN, the present instance
h not To he bound 10y the literal reacing Of the
section in question. since II ~ manifest that the
hneu ge ia imperfect. Ii 1t has Discretionary
. power In one respe t. 1t has IA another and,
moreover, a due reg rd for the frailties - hu-
man nature requires int II should not be TOO
ba,iy IN handing over recusant witness to the
officers of Justice for the punishtnen, ~ an Of
fence which he, after due rsnec io., might re,
tret. and which II has alNays been the policy OF
parliamentary bodies 10 * 'us", provided the
Offender made repsration therefor ~ conlne tc
fhe bar and purHng himself OF The contenp
Of which he was guilty. 1t Is the opinion OF th'
lawyers who mold this Wow that all parliament
nry hodies nave the Inherent right TO punish 10
eontempt.
TnE INnrREST RIGHT OF CONGRESS.
wtness who refuses TO ansn er u question
after he mas been brought TO the Tar VI th
House Of aeprtse.t ,tiy.s isRuilti 81 nonteinp
OF the AutuCftv ~ that ody, ana the House hA
the inLeTt nj right 20 punish therefor. Tins no
body versed H. pari ,mentary law will deny bu
II Is claimed that the Congress Of the nitet
States has divested itself oi thls rlght 30 fhr a
recu-ant witnesses are concerned, 10y piovidiul
chat tney snail he turned over TO the Ctmna
Court Of the District Of Columbil, where, /
found guilty., they shall be punished by nue o
not more than $l,OiU and not less tnan $lOO an'
AmprIsonmeut Ia the common JAIL Tor not les
than one month nor moio than one wear. Ac
clrdina 10 this INTERPRETATION Of the law TN
Criminal Court OF the District Of Columbia !
made tue Judge Of what e. Institutes IA contemp
Of ongiess 10y a witncs--that rs. IT Is to seci {
tfst. whe'her or not the question pfoIounded L
ne win, - Wns "A pruper one. aid whether h
was guilty Of contempt IN refusing TO answer II
Ou tue other hand II Is GAINED that the refusa
ei witness to answer question which III
House OF Representatives has declared Is
proper one to be put to him,is an offence agains
society a. well - contempt OF the House. ~
upon the theory that II may he OF vital I'm
pnrtance to the community, OF absolute neces
sity to the state to discover cert in facts IN or
deI that measures may he taken 20 protect IN
rghis of citizens, or to preserve the lie Of tn
patton it-ef. Hence, II witness refuses l.