The Morning herald., 1876-04-18

". Lord obtained leave to print the rel
mstudee of his remarks.
Mr.. McCrary, Iowa, was recognized 81
entitled to the door, bat gave way for n
for the trial.
n. Cox, New York, raised the question
whether the House should not attend the
ma6asess TO Tie 6onate, that body having |
prepared sesss and extended the invttafaon.
Mr.. Lord said be had conversation with |
Judge Edmuns, chairman Of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, who had stated that
they had decided to invite the House over.
he suggested that the managers retire at
once and take their places, and that then
the House, headed BY the Speaker, proceed
in . body to the Senate chamber. Inasmuch
A. the Senate had exteDdeq an invftation to
the House, 1t was its duty TO 60 over.
Mr.. Hoar, Mass, said he looked up the
precedent, and had found that the House
had in each case attended at least once, as
Committee Of the Whole, accompanied By
the Speaker and Clerk. He then moved
that at one O'Clock the House resolve itself
into Committee of the Whole, and a. such
attend the trial of the Secretary Of War In
the Senate chamber, and that 1t be accom-
panied BY the Speaker and clerk.
Mr.. Kelly, Pa, said he favored the House
going over a. such in support of its maD-
agerS. 1t would NO. then appear as having
no interest and simply attending An invita-
ton of the Senate.
After some desultery debate a. to detail
of the arrangements, the motion of Mr..
Hoar was agreed to, and at one O'Clock the
House resolved itself into Committee of the
Whole, Mr.. Randall, Pa, in the chair, and
then, headed BY the chairman, the Speaker
and the clerk, lett the hall, and proceeded
to the Senate chamber.
At half-past one the members returned
and the committee rose, and Mr.. Randall
announced that the Committee of the Whole
had, by order Of the House, accompanied
the managers on the part Of the House to
late Secretary of War.
Mr.. McCresry then addressed the House
on the KilbourR matter, and said they were
now asked to do what had been done by no
legislative body in this country nor in Eng
land for the past hundred years. Amid
the doubts which surround the case he
thought the problem should be solved by
the House, as the courts would solve
similar question BY giving the prisoner the
benefit of the doubt. The court having
Jurisdiction in q writ of habeas corpus
would have jurisdiction on the legality of
the question of the right of the House to
put the question. This was the establish
ment of precedent. and it should be most
carefully considered. To assert that
neither house could do no wrong and could
not commit prisoner wrongfully was to
bag the question. He should pause long be.
fore saying the House had power to hold
witness rightfully or wrongfully; whether
in violation of the Constitution or not .
He argued that the court hearing the habeas
corpus had the right to inquire into the
Jurisdiction of the authority committing q
witness over the subject-matter, and cited
numerous legal decisions in support of this
position, and pending want of Jurisdiction
| to discharge the prisoner. Should it be said
that the House had the authority to 60
out and without jurisdiction drag in a
person and hold him without redress from
the habeas corpus. The courts had power
to annul law enacted by both branches of
Congress and approved by the President,
and should it be said that single branch
had higher power to the whole. That the
House could do what both branches could
not do-hold prisoner beyond the control
of the judiciary. Even the English House
of Parliament, and no one wonld claim the
Houss had higher perogatives, was subject to
an inquiry into its conduct by the Judiciary.
Both English aud American authorities
sustained the right of the court making in
quiry to have the body before it, and If
there was want of jurisdiction to order a
discharge. In the only two cases between
the state courts and the legislatures of the
states Gin Wisconsin and in Massachusetts,
the decisions had been in favor of the
courts
After general debate, Mr.. Tucker offered
an amendment to the majority resolution
directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to appear
before the House by consent, and moved tt
quash the proceedings under the writ OF
take such other measures as he may be ad
vised as necessary to raise the question OF
validity and propriety of the writ.
In course of the discussion upon thil
amendment, lively fight between Mr.
Blaine and Mr.. Tucker occurred.
, In reply TO question by Mr.. Blaine, Mr.
, Tucker made rather curt reply sayinl
,, that Blaine was no lawyer.
Mr.. Blaine replied that he thanked Cox
he was not lawyer, trained in the sam
school with Mr.. Tucker, yet he could stant
here to-day, to maintain that the Hous
possessed power possessed by no othe
, branch of the Government, to commit
prisoLer without the possibility Of revi
,, sion Of its act.
Mr.. Tucker said that what the gentleman
. had taken as "fing," in reply TO con
versational discussion, was not intended a
offensive. He merely intended to say tha
the gentleman from Maine had agaiI
:. shown as on q recent occasion, that he wa
no lawyer, there was one thing be was, b
. was Pharisee.
= A few more hot words followed whe
Mr.. Hood at 420 demanded the previou
question and 1t was seconded. The ques
ton was taken on the amendment ORC
+ posed BY Mr.. Tucker, and it was rejecte
l. BY vote of l49 nays to SO yeas.
The question then recurred upon th
resolution substituted by the minority Q
Vt the judiciary Com mittee, directing the Gel