Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1889-02-27

States and against Kerr as speaker Of the
house, and others, members and COM
mittee of the house. This case decides
First-That the house Representatives
may punish itsh own members, decide
cases of contested elections and determine
the qualification Of its own members, has
the power of impeachment of officers of
the government, and, where the examina-
ton of witnesses is necessary for the per-
formance OF these duties, the house may
fir Q @. imprison contumacious witnesses
but tuat there is no general power in
either house to punish for contempt.
Second-Neither house of congress
constitutes part of any court of general
jurisdiction. Its powers must be sought
in some express grant of the constitution
or be necessary to carry into effect such
powers as are granted.
Third-The order of the house declar-
ing the witness guilty Of contempt of its
authority and ordering his imprisonment
by the sergeant at arms was void and
afforded him no protection in an action
for false Imprisonment. See also, Ameri-
can and English Ency. of Law vol. 3, for
Justice Fields review and approval OF
the case of Kilbourn vs.. Thompson, PIP.
TT and IT'S; also, Whitcomb's case, l20
Mass. p. 122.
The case of Anderson VS.. Dunn, 6
Wheaton 204 cited in Cooley on Cons
titutional Limitations, is rejected and
overruled in Kilbourn vs. Thompson.
Whatever may be the power of the
legislature OF state to punish a witness
for contempt of it's authority, it is not
perceived on what ground congress could
confer on a territorial legislature power
not possessed by that body under the
constitution of the United States.
My opinion is that the present case
comes within the decision of Kilbourn VS..
Thompson, and that the legislative coun-
Gil has gone too far and exceeded it's
powers in the proceedings for the arrest
and in the confinement of the plaintiff,
the same not being rightful subjects Of
legislation and being inconsistent with
the constitution and laws of the United
States.
The powers of territory to pass laws,
being subject to the control of congress,
differ in that respect from the powers Of
a state
Acts Sept. 9th, 1850, Comp. Laws N.
NJ, p. SO, Sec. 1850. The organic act
provides that, "the supreme and district
courts of each territory and the respective
judges thereof, except for Idaho and Mon
tana, may grant writs of habeas corpus in
all cases in which the same are grantable
by the judges of the United States in the
District of Columbia" Comp. Laws N.
NJ, p. n, Sec. 1912.
In Kilbourn's case a writ of habeas cor
pus was issued by the chief justice of the
supreme court of the District of Colum-
bia. See Kilbourn vs.. Thompson 103 U.
S. III, also Comp. Laws N. NJ, title
Habeas Corpus, sections 2012 to 2047.
The powers of the assembly are not
questioned as legislative body and do
not depend on the enforcement OF these
resolutions. The power to enact laws for
the investigation, trial and punishment of
persons guilty of crimes is not impaired
by reason of the failure of witnesses to
testify before committees nor for want of
any power to compel them to testify.
Investigations before committees have
proceeded upon examinations OF witnesses
by voluntary appearance and not by com
pulsory process in cases not provided for
| by law or the constitution.
The task of passing upon these proceed
ings is not pleasant duty and is per-
formed with the respect due to co-or-
dinate branch of the government.
The motiong to strike out the return OF
the respondent, George G.. Cans, sergeant
at arms of the council, to the writ of ha-
beas corpus is sustained, and w. E. Gort-
ner, the plaintiff in the writ, discharged
from custody.
The same opinion an order is. made
applicable to r. M. johnson as plaintiff
in the writ of habeas corpus.
r. A. REEVES,
Associate Justice and Judge Of the Isl
Judicial District