Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-04-28
THE HALLET KILBOURN CASE.
Decision Of Judge Cartier.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus Sustained.
The Reeusant Witness delivered 30
the Criminal Court for Trial.

In the ''GpTeme Court, District OF Column
bia, before CsIef Justice Cartier, sitting In
chambers, this morning, the decision was
READ in the matter OF Hallet KnbOurn's pc
titiOn for the writ of habeas corpus. The
proceedings took place in the Circuit Court
room. There were not many specta tors
~ eSeUt, as IL was not generally known tn II
the decision would be announced this mora
ing. The Court was opened at ten O'Clock,
and after lew minutes delay OccasiOned by
the late arrival of Mr.. Kilbourn aud some OF
the counsel Judge Cartier read the opinion
as follows
STATEMENT.
The relator, Hsllet kilbOurn. presents his
petition under oath, stating therein that he
IS uDlawfully imprisoned in the common
all of the District of Columbia by John G.
Thompson, Sergeant alarms of the House
OF representatives of the L. s. Congress.
under an order OF said House; and asking
mat the writ of hdbedS cO.pls shall issue to
said Sergeant-at-ArmS commanding him to
bring the relator before the court, to the end
that the cause of his detention may be in
QuiTed into; and If found TO be illegal that
lie may be discharged from custody. The
writ Is duly issued and served upon the Ser
geant at Arms, who responds thereto by
bringing the relator before the court, and
makes full and formal return OF the causes
for which he is held in custody. The re-
spOndent states at length the history of the
case leading to the arrest and confinement
Of the relator, the substance OF which state
unent, in brief, is as follows: The House OF
Representatives, being duly organized, was
in lawful session on the 9th OF January,
1876, and on that day resolved to appoint a
special committee TO inquire into the nature
and history of a certain matter known as
the "real estate pool" In the District of CO.
lumbia, and the character of a settlement
alleged to have been made by the trustee in
bankruptcy of the estate OF Jay Cooke a. Co.
with said real estate pool, the government
sets of said bankrupt firm. Such committee
was duly empowered TO send for persons aud
papers, and directed TO report the result
of their Investigations TO the House.
The committee subsequently, appointed co n
menced its inquiry, and, TO that end, cause
subpoena duceS tec'1n TO be issued and
served upon the relatOr, commanding him
10 appear before il 10 testify, and to bring
with him certain deeds, books, maps and
other papers relating TO certain described
lots and squares of ground in said District.
The relatOr appeared in obedience TO the
subpoena, and testified in answer TO certain
questions; but on being asked whether he
had brought the papers and documents re-
ferred 10 in the subpoena, answered in the
negative He was asked further II he was
willing TO produce them, and he again an
swered in the negative. He was then asked
II he refused TO produce them in response TO
the subpoena, and he answered IN the affirm
alive, claiming that his papers related to his
private business, and that, Ike every pri-
vate citizen not accused OF violating law, he
had the right to be protected in his papers
The relator further declined TO answer GER
tain other questions asked him, as To the
sons who were members of said real estate
pool, besides the firm OF Jay Cooke q Co
Upon this refusal of the relator so 10 ausW er
questions and produce papers, the commit
tee reported the matter 10 the House. aud
that body ordered warrant to issue for the
arrest OF the relatOr, and 10 bring him be-
fore the HOuse 10 show cau-e why he
-uCuld not be punished for contempt.
IN obedience TO this warrant the relatOr was
OIOUgGt To the bar OF the House, where the
Speaker askej him the same questions which
lie had refused 10 answer before the co nmi;-
let; and on his again refusing to answer the
questions, or 10 produce the papers, he was
adjudged to be in contempt OF the House,
sni was ordered INTO custody OF the respond
eLt, TO be Kept in his custody Il the common
Jail Of the District of Columbia until he
>hould purge himself OF the contempt, by
>ignifyng his willingness To obey the sub
PUBa. That IN pursuance OF this order OF
the House warrant was duly issuet to the
respondent, and in obedience thereto he ar
rested and row detains the relator. To this
return TO the writ OF hGGedS corpus the relatOr
makes reply, in which he states that on the
18th OF March, 1876, the Speaker of the House
OF Represen tativeS sent his certificate 10 the
United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia, stating therein the fact of the
subpoena and the refusal OF the relatOr TO
obey the same, or to answer the questions
put 10 him touching the matter under inves-
legation; that the District attorney had pre-
sented said certificate to the grand jury. and
that an Indictment had been found against
the relatOr on which a bench warrant mad
duly issued to the marshal of said District,
and which had been returned uneXecutei,
the respondent herein declining 10 surrender
the relatOr 10 the marshal. That the indict-
ment charges the relator with having COM
mitted the same offense and contempt meu-
TONED and described in the return OF the re-
spOndent herein, and that said indictment
is still depending in said court Whereupon
he prays that he may be admitted to bali TO
appear and answer said indictment, and, on
giving such bail, discharged from custody.
1t is claimed by counsel for relator that
the question, whether the House has power
10 punish for contempt generally, need Lot
be inquired into IN the present case; as the
facts are so fully set out in the return and
reply thereto as TO make this a special mat
ter; so that the only subject for inquiry here
is, has the House jurisdiction to punish the
particular contempt described in this case?
Ii is admitted by counsel that the power to
punish for contempt does exist in the House,
to the extent at least OF self preservation: To
protect its own being; and that this power is
an implied power, which IL is urged must
not be carried beyond It's necessity. 1t is
claimed that both Houses of Congress, being
thus protected in their sessions by this i'm
piled power TO punish for contempt, can
then by legislative enactment provide
methods and tribunals for the punishment
OF Offenders, and for the better protection OF
themselves, than by this Underlined ana i'm
piled power; and that having so Combined
and passed a law, as the act OF IS5I-R. =. 2.
E-wheIein the certain offense therein de-
scribed is TO become misdemeanof, and is
10 be punished In certain manner, to wit.
Columbia, then that particular odenss of
refusing TO testify or TO bring papers in ODE
dience 10 the order OF either house, can be no
longer punished under the implied power
vested in the House where the contempt is
committed, but must be certified TO the
grand jury of said District in obedience to
said law, there TO be tried as any other crim-
insl offense, by a jury. 1t is further claimed
that this particular contempt having been
declared by said statute TO be q misde-
meanor, cannot be punished by the House
under its implied power, and again by the
court under the express authority of the
statute; for that would be In violation Of the
constitutional prov ision that no person shall
be twice put In jeopardy for the same offense.
II is claimed by counsel for respondent
that the implied power to punish for con-
tempt Is granted TO the House of Representa-
tives by the Constitution as clearly as
though 1T had been expressed In words; an
that oeing so granted, IL must remain where
the Constitution places II. Consequently
that no legislation can annul, dives or lei
egate that power to any other branch OF the
gov er Iment. That IL law was passed ex
pressly forbiddilg the exercise OF this power
by either House OF Congress, such la W would
be absolutely void. That then the House,
having this constitutional authority, has
in respect thereto all the attributes OF a court;