Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-11-13

m6lnOQ Oh punishment OF q Witness WHO
should attempt to impede in the manner
stated In that section either house in the
lawful exercise Of Its constitutional author
ity. al
Counsel for the defendants contend, in
support Of the demurrer. that the Senate
committee had no Jurisdiction under the
terms of the resolution set out In the in
dictments to inquire into the subject wheth-
er Senators had been dealing in the stock OF
the said corporation. generally known as
sugar stocks, during the tendency Of the
tariff bill In the Senate, and that the said
questions set forth in the indictments have
no materiality or pertinency to any other
question before the committee, and tina. con-
sequently the defendants are guilty Of no
offense in declining to answer the questions
put to them. 1t Is not denied that the Sem
ate might have jurisdiction to inquire into
this subject, under certain circumstances
and, by a proper resolution, confer that
jurisdiction upon committee; but the OBJ
lection is that the facts and circumstances
under which that jurisdiction might be ex-
ercised do not appear in this resolution.
1T is said that in order to the proper
exercise Of this Jurisdiction Of inquiry In
to the private affairs Of the citizen, so as
to constitute it an offense on the part Of a
witness to refuse to answer a question, 1t
should appear on the face Of the resolutions
that the information sought Is material and
pertinent for the consideration Of the Sen
ate in the aid of its judicial or legislative
functions, and that it is the purpose of the
Senate to make such use Of 1t when OBJ
tanned; that while formal pleadings are not
necessary, there must be a substantial dec
laration or avowal in the resolutions Of a
definite object to be attained, such as the
trial of definite charges against some deslg-
mated person whom the Senate has the
Jurisdiction to try and punish, or the en-
lightenment Of some specifically defined sub
ject Of legislation within its jurisdiction,
and that the present resolutions contain
neither of these requirements.
No Inference of Use of the Information
Sought.
ut is also argued that no inference can
legally be drawn that the Senate intended
to make any use OF the information its
committee was seeking from the indicted
witnesses in aid of its judicial or legisla-
tive functions: that the existence of such
purpose is jurisdictional and must appear
in the record Of the proceedings in the
Senate by express declaration or avowal
'"This last proposition is probably the
most important one upon the consideration
Of these demurrers, for II 1t is well taken
1t is necessarily fatal to these indictments.
there being no express avowal or declara-
ton by the Senate in these resolutions of
purpose to make any specific use of the
information when obtained. 1t Is claimed
by counsel for the defendants that this doc
trine was used by the Supreme Court In
the cese Of Kilbourn VS.. Thompson, lob
U s. The first question decided in that
case was that neither house Of Congress
possesses any general power to punis n for
contempt, and the second was that the
subject matter Of the proposed investiga-
ton by the House, considered in that case,
was judicial In Its nature, to wit: The col
lection of a debt due the United States, and
rot legislative, and that the House had
no power to legislate upon the subject mat
ter of the investigation. and therefore had
no Jurisdiction to proceed with 1t, and that
consequently kilbourn was not in contempt
in refusing to answer the questions Of the
House committee. The first question de-
termined in the Kilbourn case, to wit,
whether either house Of Congress has turis-
diction to punish as for contempt witness
failing to appear or testify before such
house or one of its committees and II SO,
under what circumstances such power may
be exercised, does not arise in these cases.
The first question In these cases Is whether
Congress may declare it an offense, punish
able by indictment In a court of competent
jurisdiction, for a witness to decline to
answer a proper and material question pro-
pounded by committee of the Senate, act
ing under a proper resolution of that body
touching a matter In which it has the Juris-
diction to inquire.
Justice Hnrlan's Opinion.
THAT the Supreme Court considers this a
very different question from the first enc
decided in the Kilbourn case is apparent
frc m it's decision in the case of the inter-
state commerce commission VS.. Crimson,
1874, U. s., AT. In that case it was held
that while Congress may not confer upon
the interstate commerce COMMISSION tne
power to compel witnesses to testify before
1t, or punish them for contempt for failure
to do SO, that Ii Is competent for 1t to con-
fer upon the courts the jurisdiction either
to compel such testimony or to punish for
contempt for the failure to give 1t, or to
punish the failure by indictment. See page
ass, where Mr.. Justice Harlan distinguishes
between these questions and comments
upon the Kilbourn case. If Congress may
make 1t an offense to fail to give proper
evidence before a commission which II
creates It certainly may make 1t an Of
Tense to fail to do SO In proper proceedings
before either of the houses of Congress.
The interstate commerce act conferred upon
that commission the power to inquire into
the business and methods OF all persons and
corporations enga ged In Interstate COM
merce. In the case last above referred to
1t was contended among other things on
behalf of the witnesses who refused to
answer that they could not be required to
disclose their private affairs before the
commission, and tn It the effort to compel
them to do SO was In violation of private
right, as it is contended in these cases.
Mr. Justice Harlan, answering that argu-
ment, uses the following language: AS
every citizen is bound to obey the law and
to yield obedience to the constituted au-
thorites acting within the law, this power
conferred upon the commission imposes
upon any one, summoned by that body to
appear and testify, the duty Of appearing
and testifying, and upon any one required
to produce such books, papers, tariffs, con-
tracts, agreements and documents. the duty
of producing them. If the testimony sought
and the books, papers. etc, called for re-
late to the matter under investigation If
such matter is one which the commission
is legally entitled to investigate, and IL the
witness Is not excused on some personal
ground, from doing what the commission
requires at his hands These propositions
seem to be so clear and ndisputable that
any attempt to sustain them by argument
would be of no value in the discussion
Was the Senate Committee Entitled to
Investigate.
"Under this rule the first question Is
whether the Senate committee was legally
entitled to investigate the subject matter
mentioned in the resolutions. That necessi-
tates the determination Of the question dis
cussed with much ability in the argu-
ment, whether the resolutions show juris-
and. as connected with that, wheth-
er the court is at liberty to draw any in
ferenceS upon that subject And, as before
stated, the counsel for defendants argue
that the negative of this proposition was
decided In the Kilbourn case, and in support
of this refer to the language Of that opinion
wherein 1t is said: IF, indeed any purpose
had been avowed to impeach the secretary,
the whole aspect of the case would have
been changed. But no such purpose Is dis
closed. None can be inferred from the pre-
amble, and the characterization of the con-
duct Of the secretary by the term 'improvi-
dent and the absence of words tmp,V-