Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-04-17

managers 20 the Senate, that body having
prepared seats and extended the invitation
MI. Lord said he bad a conversation with
Judge Edmunds, chairman OF the Senate
Judiciary Committee, who had stated that
they bad decided TO invite the House over
he suggested that the managers retire At
once and take their places aud thai then
the House, headed by the Speaker. proceed
In BODY 10 the Senate chamber InaSmuch
as me senate had extended an invitation 10
The House, IL was its duty 10 go over
Mr.. Hoar Mass said ne had looked IN
the precedent, and had found that the House
had in each case attended az least once. as a
Committee of the Whole, accompanied by
TIE Speaker and Clerk. He then moved that
at one o clOck the House resolve itself into
committee OF the Whole, aud as such attend
the trial OF the Secretary OF War in the SEN
ate chamber, and that IL be accompanied by
The Speaker and clerk.
Mr.. Kelley PA said he favored the House
going over as such in support OF its mana
gers. II would not then appear as having
no interest anu simply attending an invita-
ton OF the Senate
AMER some desultory debate as to de,atl n,
the arrangements The motion OF Mr. Hoar
was agreed 10. 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
ihe clerk, LEFT the hall and proceeded 10 the
Senate chamber.
At half past one the members returned
anu the committee rose, and Mr.. Randall
announced that the Committee of the Whole
bad, by order OF the House, accom- panied the
managers on the part 81 the House " De
present ~ the trial OF W. w. Belknsp, late
Secretary of War.
Mr.. McCreary then addressed the House
on The hilbOurn matter, and said thew 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 a similar question
by giving the prisoner the benent of the
doubt. The court having jurisdiction IN a
VIII OF haoeas corpus would have jurisdiction
on the legality of the question Of the right OF
the House 10 put the question. This was the
establishment of precedent, and IL should
be most carefully considered. To assert that
nelihe. house could do no wrong and could
rot commit s. prisoner wrongfully was 10
bag the question. He should pause long be-
fore saying the House had power TO mold a
witness rlghtfully or wrongfully; whether
In violation OF the Constitution or not
lie argued that the court hearing the habeas
corpus had the right TO inquire into the
JURISDICTION OF the authority committing a
witness over the subject matter, and cited
numerous legal dec isions in support of this
position, and pending a want OF Jurisdiction
10 discharge the prisoner. should 10 be said
mat the House had the authority 10 go
out and without Jurisdiction drag In
person and hold him without redress from
the habeas corpus. The courts had power 10
annul law enacted by both branches OF
congress ana approved oy the President.
higher power 10 the whole. That the House
could do what both branches could not do =
hold prisOner beyond the control Of the iu-
dietary. Even the English House Of Parlia-
ment, and no one would claim the House h adj
higher per0gatives, was subject 10 an inquiry
into Its conduct by the judiciary. Both
English and American authorities sustained
the right Of the court ma king inquiry 20 have
The fody before IL, and If there was a want
OF Jurisdiction 10 order "A discharge. Ia the
only two cases between the state courts and
the egislstures OF the states Gin Wisconsin
and in MaSsachusetts) the decisions hal
been in favor OF the courts.