Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1876-04-16

of the United States imprisoned b.
its order, the right oi.a hearing be
fore IA court on writ of habrns cor
pus. Ii this preceden, were establish
ed 1T WAS Of Importance that the
American people aud courts should
understand it. If in the. exercise of
!. its privileges, the house encroached
on the liberties of the people these
privileges would be revised and ex-
amined, and members would be re
turned TO the house who would ire.
spcct the constitutional rights and
maintain the liberties of the people,
NJ. l<asson hoped that the time
was long distant when American
citizens, whose property or liberty
was involved, was to i.d his final
court in the house Of representatives.
The proposition here that citizen
should have no review before a court,
: no appeal to any other Jurisdiction, no
possible reconsideration Of q Judgment
I of the house Of representatives., was
that within the meaning of the Amer
iChtl GlllStItullOii MHCIl ~ -uSCialcu
that the writ of habeas corpus should
never be suspended except in time Of
war or INVASION? He denied the exis-
,cnce of that right, and challenged
the presentation OF an instance on the
record OF the country where the house
or senate had denied the right of a
court to decide on the question Of per
sonal liberty and personalright. That
was what the house was now propos-
ing to do, aud il would have to be
done by yeas and nays. The house
would have to decide whether il wouf1t-
establish a precedent forlthe first time,
that citizen who refused to testify
before it, was to be denied the great
right over which nations had fought,
and 70: the security Of which, many
lives were lost.
Mr.. Lawrence, a member Of the
committee on judiciary, advocated
|.thc resolution of the majority, and
laid down and elaborated the follow
j ing four propositions:
lst. That the house had power TO
4 institute an investigation/and ndto sum
mon and examine witnesses through
its committees.
i ID. That as an/ incident OF that
power the housc< had authority to
Judge Of conte,hp.s ON the. part Of
lt;9eSSt.s-relnsin9- -to-iestify. and TO
punish theunby Imprisonment.
r. 81 'rlillt flhIes'T jju7algneT, Of ruuzr
4 ii-is-f4ial and conclusive tots inris=
+ fdic,imh as to the right Of
icxerc'sisgIit by sentence Of impci.
sopmcnt, II follows that no court could
Inquire into the jurisdiction Of the
house TO inprison during the exist
!. cnce of congress.
4th. That this rule had not been
changed by any statute.
Mr.. Kelly opposed Hurl's rcsolu-
ton. llc believed lStlbourle,s i'm.
,Ifprisonmen! a mistakewhicll the house
:. woplasuot have made ifit had heard
lSii',ourne through his counsel or if
the members had had an opportunity
to stn.y the record in the case, aud if
! the question had cen opened to free
discussion. But it was never too late
i TO do good thing, and having made
a grave mistake the house should
ejthcr.send this witness before The
!. Judge, aud when -rcmanded, AS he had
i no doubt he would be, then discharge
5 him, Or it should discharge him AT
9 once and avow frankly that it had in
vaded the rights OF an American
i citizen.
, Mr.. IIoar said this was qnestio,
d before the house. "\Nas the extern
d of rights of this house limited by th,
: discretion and BY the judgment Of !
l. single Judge of the supreme conr
r Of the District OF Columbia;
!. If SO the court might do the same ,ht
n next week to the senate, and il, wheI
: that august tribunal was engaged te
try the secretary Of war or the presi
4 dent Of the United States, Mr.. Marsl
f or some other witness, when qucs.
: ton was put to him, would say, "ol
c the whole DO not think wifi fftt-an HI
e swer that question: and the scl,at,
y committed him for contempt, thel
1 EEGhief Justice Garter would have !;
e right to say: ''rake that man out Q
thescustody Of the scrgeailt-atarms
IS and bring him before me, ands ] vii
IS see myself what think Of that qucs
tion. This outcry that the house wa
. undertaking to put itself against pri
il vate liberty was perfectly prcpostel
j Gus. ----
d| Mr.. Garfield quoted from Mayo
a parliamentary law to the effect tina
/ the habcas corpus act is binding o
n all persons whatever, and that it
r therefore competent for Judges I
II have before them person coumittc
e. by the house Of parliament for cor
i tempt. Now they wer
Of confronted by the question tha