Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-04-28

used in the section of the Constitution
when provides that no person shall be
sutJect Tor the same offense to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limo
That whether the matt en- under inv estigatioo
oy the House, when the contempt was COM
United, though claimed to be for proper leg
islative purposes, was strictly within the
scope OF It's Jurisdiction as a legislative
oooy or not, cannot now be the subject of in
curry, that that was question for the
House TO decide, and not for the witness; and
That the contempt was equally an offence
against the House in either case. That in a
trial by the House for contempt, the matter
of jurisdiction is the contempt ITSELF aud not
the matter on trial when the contempt was
committed. That If the matter under inves-
legation by the House has color of law for its
support, and is not sheer usurpation of au-
thOrity, and an act of violence, then the
courts are pOwerleSS 10 interfere with it's
Judgment for contempt committed by a wit
ness during the progress of such investiga-
ton. That the imprisonment OF the relator,
" bile II is in the nature of a punishment for
the offence, is also for the more important
purpose of compelling him 10 testify; aud in
this view is remedial in its nature, aud can
he terminated by the relatOr himself on his
slgnlfy1ng Willingness to testify, aud TO
liberate himself from the restraint imposed
by the House at any moment, by thus purg-
ing himself of the contempt, he mas no power
TO relieve himself from punishment under
the statute for his offence against the public;
and that this shows cOnclusively that ttCO
offences have been committed in the one act
OPINION.
The consideration of this case, in the light
of authority and the able and exhaustive ar
gument of coup sci, with such reflection as |
have been able to DTing To the aid of judg-
ment, has reduced the questions involved in
il TO the inquiry, whether the House of Rep
resentatives possessed jurisdiction for pun
ishmeDt over The person of the relator. If
the House of Representatives mad jurisdic-
ton in the subject matter of the invesiga-
ton, and that jurisdiction was not termi-
mated by the jud sment for contempt, the jul
w - C1N-a xAf hn Nf
writ; and IL is not within the province of the
law, or law tribunal, To inquire into, or ques-
tion 1t. On the other hand, If the House did
not possess constitutional power to make the
investigation; or. If that power, in punish
ment OF the relator had exhausted itself with
the judgment for contempt, the rights Sc
cured to the relatOr and every other citizen
by virtue of the writ supervene, and the ju-
risdictiOn and power of the law tribunals
charged with the duty TO give the writ ef-
feet, obtain. 1t may be regarded In the light
Ofunvarying authority, that punishment for
contempt within the limitations of the iuris-
diction OF the House, whether the House Is
TO be considered as court or not, is conclu-
sive OF judgment, and may not be inquired
" To by wilt OF hdbedS corpus or otherwise.
1t is right inherent in the Jurisdiction of the
tribunal, essential to its integrity and pres
ervation, and inviolate from the Interference
OF jurisd Iction disconnected with the tribu-
nal exercising it. The predicate ofjudgment
leads me irst TO the inquiry: Whether the
power OF the House TO infiict the punishment
involved in its order, had been transferred
by law TO the adjudications of the courts?
The first effort of Congress to regulate the
subject of punishment for contempt by law,
transplr;d Jenuary p, 1851 and is found on
page l55 of the III. vol. of the statutes at
large, in an act entitled IAN act more effec-
tually to enforce the attendance of witnesses
on the summons of either house OF Congress-
and TO cOmrel them 10 discover testimony"
The second section of this act relates to the
protection OF the witness from prosecution
for testimony so given; and the first and third
sections are as follows:
BE IL enacted by the Senate d,ti House Of Rep.
IeSehtotfUes Of The United States Of ADIsTicd ia
Congress- assembled, That any person sum-
moned as witness by the authority OF either
House Of Congress 10 give testimony or to
produce papers upon any matter before either
House, or any com mittee of either House of
Congress, who shall wilfully MAKE default, or
who, appearing, shall refuse TO answer any
question pertinent 10 the matter of inquiry
IN consideration before the house or commit
Zee by which he shall be examined, shall, ia
1tdiOIl 10 the pains and penalties ROU eIiS!i,J,
be liable to indictment as ami for a miSde-
meanor, in any court OF the United States
having jurisdiction thereof; and, on convic-
lion, shall pay fine not exceeding one thou
sand dollars, and not less than one hundred
dollars, and suffer Imprisonment in the COM
mon jail not less than one month nor more
than twelve months"
''Sec. ). And be IL further tndcted That when
awitness shall fail TO testify, rs provided in
the previous sections OF this act, and the
facts shall be repOrted TO the House, il shall
be the duty OF Inc Speaker OF the House or
the President Of the Senate To certify the
fact under the seal of the House or Senate to
the District Attorney for the District of Co.
lumbia, whose duty II shall be TO bring the
matter before the grand jury for their
action"
Again, on the oath day of January, 1862, by
an act entitled IAN act amending the pro-
visions of the second section OF the act of
January twenty fourth, eighteen hundred
and fifty seven, enforcing the attendance of
witnesses before committees OF either House
of
This amendment is not material to the
matter under consideration, further than as
legislative recognition of the other sections
OF the statute then existing.
This is the history and terms OF the action
of Congress up TO the act OF June %, 1874, en-
titled IAN act 10 revise and consolidate tue
statutes Of the United States in force on the
first day OF December, Ammo Domini one
thousand eight hundred and seventy three"
The last expression OF legislation, and the
present law.
sections 1902 and lOi of this act, are as fol-
lows:
"Sec. lO2. Every person who, having been
summoned a. witness by the authority OF
either House OF Congress, TO give testimony
or TO produce papers upon any matter under
inquiry before either House, or any commit
tee of either House of Congress, wilfully
makes default, or who, having appeared, re-
fuses TO answer any question pertinent to
the question under inquiry, shall be deemed
guilty of misde meanOr, punishable by a
nne OF not more IMAM -, 200 nor less than
500, and Imprisonment in common all for
not less than one month nor more than twelve
months"
"Sec. lOi. Wherever witness summoned
as mentioned in section 1872 fails 10 testify,
and the facts are reported TO either House,
the President OF the Senate or the Speaker of
the House, as the case may be, shall certify
The fact under the seal of the Senate or House,
to the District AttorEey for the District of
Columb ia, whose duty il shall be to bring
the matter before the grand jury for their
action.'
The first and natural inquiry in the light
Of this leg islation is the question. why, was
ii enacted In the form and substance that we
find II? Ordinarily, to legal tribunal
charged with the administration OF the law,
where the law is unobscurci and It's language
definite, it is sufficient and conclusive that
II is written by the law maker; but inasmuch
as the constitutionality and purpose of these
statutes have been controverted in the argu-
ment, il may not be out of place TO inquire
why they were passed.
My reflection has no difficulty in finding
apt and ample reasons for the interposition
Of the statute. The antecedent condition OF
the power was late :, underlined, and unpub-
lished. Common justice TO the citizen re-
Quired that 1t should be definc and made
known. Again, IT is a truth well known TO
the consti tutional student of the history OF
n, L. aeAIlf wow