Morning journal and courier., 1881-03-03
Thursday Morning, March 8, 1881.
THE RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO INTER
EERE WITH PERSONAL IIRERTY.

Thursday Morning, March 8, 1881.
| THE RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO INTER-
| FERE WITH Personal LIBERTY.
| The Importance of the unanimous opinion
| of the Supreme Court of the United States
in the case of Hallet Kilbourn vs. the Ser
| geant-at-Arms of the House of Representa-
| tives, for false Imprisonment, is very great.
The decision is landmark in the history of
the jurisprudence of our young Republic.
| By it the encroachment of the legislative de-
partment upon the rights of the citizen
which has heretofore been INDUCED in by
| Congress under an assumed prerogative of
inherited parliamentary powers is declared
an exercise of unlawful authority.
The opinion quotes freely from English
parliamentary precedents and practices, and
shows clearly the distinction between the
usages of that system, underlined as they are
by any fundamental grant of authority from
the people, and the prerogatives of Congress,
which are limited within the strict construc-
ton of the powers expressly conferred by the
Constitution of the United States. It points
House of Commons of England on the sub
ject of punishment for contempts rest on
principles which have no application to other
legislative bodies, and certainly can have none
to the House of Representatives of the United
States-a body which in no sense is court,
which exercises no functions derived from its
once having been part of the highest court
of the realm, and whose functions, SO far as
they partake in any degree of that character.
are limited to Furnishing its own members
and determining their election. This being
So the Court is of the opinion that the right
of the House of Representatives to punish
the citizen for contempt of its authority or
breach of its privileges can derive no sup
port from the precedents and practices of the
two Houses of the English Parliament nor the
adjudged cases in which the English courts
have upheld these practices. Nor can it be
said that, taking what has fallen from the
English judges, much aid is given to the doc
trine that this power exists as one necessary
to enable either House of Congress to exer-
else successfully it's function of legislation.
What Congress can do in the way of disci-
plining citizens is carefully defined by the
Court. The Constitution expressly empowers
each House to punish its own members for
disorderly behavior. The Court see no reason |
to doubt that this punishment may in proper |
case be imprisonment, and that it may be |
for refusal to obey some rule on that subject |
made by the House for the preservation of /
order.
So, also, the penalty which each House is /
authorized to infiict in order to compel the |
attendance of absent members may be i'm
prisonment, and this may be for violation
of some order or standing rule on that SUBJ
ject.
Each House is by the Constitution made the
Judge of the election and qualifications of its
In deciding on these it has an
undoubted right to examine witnesses and in
spect papers, subject to the usual rights of
Witnesses in such cases; and it may be that
q witness would be subject to like punish |
ment at the hands of the body engaged in
trying contested election for refusing to
testify that he would if the case were pending
before court of judicature.
The House of Representatives has the sole
right to impeach officers of the government,
and the Senate to try them. Where the
question of such impeachment is before Ell
ther body acting in its appropriate sphere on
that subject, the Court see, no reason to
doubt the right to compel the attendance of |
and their answer to proper ques-
lions, in the same manner and by the use of |
The same means that courts of justice can in
like cases.
But, the opinion continues whether the
power of punishment in either House by fine
Or imprisonment goes beyond this or not,
41o& 1o, ehal /
for contumacy as a witness before either |
House unless his testimony is required in |
natter into which the House has jurisdiction
% inquire, and we feel equally sure that j
seit1ter Of these bodies possesses the general {
oo,oer Of making inquiry into the 7,,'ioatc at-
fairs OF the citizen.
This decision conflicts with that rendered {
oy the Court in 1921, in the case of AnderS
ION against Dun, and the conflict is noticed,
out the Court say: '1t (Anderson vs.. Dun) s
vas decided as a case of the first impression {
n this Court and undoubtedly under press
ire of the strong rulings of the English :
courts in favor of the privileges of the two '
Houses of Parliament. Such is not the doc +
rine, however, of the English courts to-day '
By this opinion Congress is warned that it !,
must confne its action to matters of legisla-
ion exclusively and not assume to perform
he duties that are devolved by the Constitu-
ion upon the Judiciary department, co-or-
Innate branch of our government. The
Jourt stands forth boldly for the protection
# the citizen against encroachment upon his
liberty by any branch of the government.
t is well to have this decision, for Congress
las at times used the power of Imprisonment y.
or contempt claimed by it with questionable
reedom.