Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-07-02
De MURRERS FILED
In the Cases of Brokers Chairman
and Mccartney.
JUDGE SHELLABARGER FOR THEM
Arguments Postponed Until About
the Middle Of August.
GROUNDS OF OBJECTION

q RIO u n DIS OF OBJ ECTION
AS stated in Saturdays Star would be
the case, counsel for Messrs Elverton r.
Chapman and John w. Mccartney, Indicted
for refusing to answer certain Questions
propounded by the Senate investiga ting
committee. this morning filed a demurrer
to the indictments. At the request Of the
counsel for the accused, the arguments on
the demurrer were postponed until August
Shortly before IL o'clock Messrs. Chap
man and Mccartney. accompanied by Judge
Shellabarger and Wilson, appeared before
Judge Cole, in Criminal Court No. /. Dis
! trict Attorney Birney stated that the in
dicted parties were present AMI he asked
that they enter their plea to the indict-
| ments.
Judge Shellabarger's Request.
Judge Shellabarger stated that the ac-
cused would waive the reading Of the in
dictments. and that they desired to file
a demurrer 10 them before being required
to plead. He thereupon filed a demurrer to
each Indictment and then asked that the
arguments thereon be postponed until after
the assembling of the Court OF Appeals
next September. In making the request
Judge Shellabarger briefly referred to the
and gave notice that il necessary. the ac-
cused would carry the cases to the United
States Supreme Court The questions pre-
scented in the indictments, said Judge Shell
labarger, involved the sacred, constitutional
| right of every American citizen.
To prepare for a full and comprehensive
presentation Of the questions would require
several weeks labor. Should the court sus-
tain the indictments. there would, Of course,
be an appeal to the Court of Appeals. That
court would not be in session before Sep
TENDER. Hence. there would be aothing
gained by an immediate hearing on the de-
murrers.
District Attorney Birney said that he ap-
preciated the great Importance of the ques-
| tions involved. but his desire. for obvious
public reasons, was for an early hearing.
He had hoped that the matter could be dis
posed of in a week or ten days time 1t
was very important. both to the Senate
and the House of Representatives that the
matter should be disposed Of at the earliest
day practicable.
Judge Coles Suggestion.
Judge Cole said that he saw no public i'm
portance for early disposition of the
cases. The Senate was responsible for the
investigation. but it should not hold the
nisi prius court responsible for necessary
or reasonable delay. II that court should
sustain the demurrers. there would then be
an end of the cases. 1t was therefore I'M
fortunate that the United States had no
right to a writ of error. especially in cases
arising on demurrer. In the present ese,
particularly. the very foundation Of the
government was at issue. Judge Cole then
explained that he and Judge Bradley would
divide August between them in holding
court. Judge Bradley was unwell and would
probably not care to hear the cases. Iiut
Judge Cole stated that he could hear the
cases between the 18th and 10th Of August
and would, If agreeable to both sides. set
them for that time
Mr.. Birncy and Judge Shellabarger as
senting the eases were set down for argu-
ment on some day between those dates.
Broker Chairman then gave bail in the
sum Of $1,000 to answer the Indictment re-
turned against him, Mr.. Lewis J. Davis
qualifying as his bondsman. The parties
In the cases then left the court, and Mr.
Birney later stated 10 q Star reporter that
witnesses would not be presented before
! tomorrow, or. possibly, not before Thursday
or Friday next.
Grounds of the Demurrer.
The two demurrers filed TODAY are alike.
and substantially declare the indictments
to be bad for the following reasons:
1. That the Serate OF the United States.
as to all matters wherein by the Consti-
tutiCn of the United States. II is endowed
with and empowered to exercise judicial
! functions as distinguished from political
the Constitution. II may exercise, Is q
court or tribunal OF limited and speciii-
cally defined jurisdiction: and in determin-
Ing In any given case the questions of
power or Jurisdiction Of the Senate to ex-
ercise any judicial functions or to do any
act under its alleged judicial powers, no
presumptions are made in favor OF its ju-
risdiction to do such act, or exercise such
power. but on the contrary. every requi-
site for the conferment of such judicial
jurisdiction must appear on the face OF the
proceedings In which the alleged judicial
act is performed Otherwise such act IS in
law one without Jurisdiction and void.
,. The only judicial powers conferred by
| the Constitution upon the Senate of the
United States as distinguished from its po-
litical and diplomatic powers are: (a) That
the Senate may purish Its members for dis
derry conduct or for failure TO attend its
sessions: (b) can decide cases OF cont ested
elections; tc) can determine the Qualifea-
tions of Its members; tD may try impeach-
ments and (e) by a two-thirds vote eNpel
a member.
3. The resolution under which the COM
mittee acted in subpoenaeing and In asking
the questions which they declined to answer
fails to show either expressly and afiirma-
lively, or even argumentatively, that the
committee was empowered either to try
any Ser ator for the infiiction of any pun
ishnent. or to try any other Of said ques-
lions comrnitted TO the judicial cognizance
of the Senate. but. on the contrary, shows
that the committee was not authorized to
set out in the indictment.
The senate Has No Power.
L. The Senate. by reason of the foregoing
principles limiting its judicial jurisdiction,
and by reason of the provisions In the
fourth and fifth amendments to the Ccnstl-
tuition. has no power or jurisdiction TO de-
mand of any citizen subpcenaei to give tcs-
tiInony before one of its committees the
surrender exhibition or disclosure of any
Of the private papers, documents Or business
OF the citizen otherwise than In the course
of judicial proceedings or in q direct suit
prosecuted for that purpose, and tnot, there
lore, the refusal to answer the questions
was not offense against section 1u2 OF
the Revised Statutes nor against any other
laws OF the United States.
). The Senate in exercising any of its
judicial functions aforesaid, IN order to be
entitled to demand from citizen the dis
closure of his private papers and business,
! must give to its judicial proceedings such
forms as are required in the exercise OF all
judicial powers and proceedings before the
right and jurisdiction to exercise them can
attach. mere drag net, thrown out to
| rh.lx