Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-05-28
Mr.. GRESHAM OVERRULED
One Of His Judicial Decisions Set Aside nv
Supreme Court
An Interstate Commerce Commfe.tor
Lengthy One-Dissenting Judges,

A legal decision by ex-Judge NOW Secre-
tary) Gresham has been overruled by the
United States Supreme Court. Justices
Fuller, Brewer and jackson dissented The
appeal brought up for review a judgment
rendered December Z. 1892, by the United
States circuit court for the northern dis
trict of Illinois in the case Of the interstate
commerce commission against w. G. Brim-
son, j. S. Keefe and w. r. Sterling, de-
claring section Il of the interstate COM
merce act TO be unconstitutional. The
parties named, officers of the company ap-
peared as witnesses before the commission,
We're ordered to produce their books, re-
fused to do so under advice Of counsel and
the commission appealed to the court to
compel them. Judge Gresham decided that
so much of section II as authorizes or re-
quires the courts to use their process in aid
or Inquiries before the interstate commerce
commission is unconstitutional and void"
Justice Harlan discussed at length the
scope and purposes of the act The judicial
power OF the United States, he said ex-
tends to all cases arising under the Con-
stitut.on or laws Of the United States and
the circuit courts of the United States are
capable of exercising the power in cases of
that character under the restrictions pre-
Scribed by Congress. The fundamental
question he held to be whether the pro-
ceeding was a case" within the meaning
of the Constitution. The circuit court had
adjudged it not to be case"
The court below had held that, IL the act
prescribed penalty for refusal to testify,
such proceeding would constitute a case
while a civil proceeding authorized by Con-
gress to compel a witness TO testify would
not be case of which cognizance could be
taken by any court. The test of the power
of Congress was not the judgment of courts
that particular means We're not the best
that could have been employed to accom-
plish an end, but whether the means were
unconstitutional. There could be no doubt
of the power of Congress to authorize the
commission to summon persons and papers
relating to any matter which might be
legally committed to that body for investi-
cation The appellees deny the right of the
government to authorize the commission to
make them testify, and the power to decide
the dispute must rest somewhere 1t could
not be that the government was helpless in
such an emergency. AS the circuit court
was competent to take Jurisdiction of the
parties why was not this a case for judicial
cognizance by that court? 1t must be tn
less Congress was without power to enforce
the statute. The constitutionality OF the
fema nded for action upon the merits of the
question. Justice Brewer said that the dis
senting judges agreed with the bulk of the
opinion that Congress had jurisdiction over
interstate COMMERCE, but did. not perceive
its application to the particular case under
consideration. Punishment for contempt
was a power possessed by courts for ages
to compel the enforcement of their DEGREES
judgments and orders, but now IT was pro-
posed tc use that power of courts to enforce
the orders of administrative officers If the
power could be used for the interstate COM
merce commission IL could for all other ad-
illustrative offices of the government