Cottonwood report. [volume] (Cottonwood, Idaho) 1893-1901, 1895-01-18

New York Brokers Guilty of Contempt
in Not Replying to the Committees
Interrogatorles-M Abide the Com
sequences Prescribed by Statute.
WASHINGTON, January 9.-The Court
OF Appeals Of the District OF Columbia
to-day rendered an opinion sustaining
the opinion of Judge Cole in the case Of
Messrs. Chapman & McCarty, stock
brokers, who refused to testify before
the Sugar Investigating Committee re-
garding individual speculations through
their firm. Judge Coles decision over
ruled the demurrer filed by the brokers
TO the government indictments. The
cases will now be appealed to the United
States Supreme Court. The three prin-
cipal questions involved, the Court Of
Appeals stated in its opinion, were the
constitutionality of section 102 OF the
revised statutes, on which the indict-
nients were based; whether the inquiry
was within the power OF the Senate to
execute by requiring witnesses to APP
pear, and whether the questions were
pertinent to the inquiry. All of these
questions the court answered adversely
to the brokers. 1t said;
No doubt is entertained by the court
as to the validity of the section which
embodied the provisions of the act of
January "a, 1857. 1t is not reported
that the defendants belong to that class
of witnesses exempted by article of the
constitution. The act must not be con-
demned as unconstitutional if by any
reasonable construction of its terms it
can be maintained as constitutional and
valid. The contention that that act was
an attempt by Congress to delegate it's
powers and jurisdiction to the several
Houses to punish for contempt of court,
and that, therefore, the statute is void,
is not acceded to, for the statute has
never been understood as having any
statute void is sn utter failure"
AS to the power of the Senate to COM
pei witnesses to testify the court said it
experienced great difficulty in distinctly
making the boundary within which
either House can act with coercive power
to compel the disclosure of facts deemed
important and of delimiting the rights
of the citizen to exemption from inquiry
into his private affairs. The court con-
tinues:
"The subject matter of the cases i'm
mediately and most seriously affects the
Senate itself and the great legislative
trust confded to its members by the peo-
pie. The dignity and integrity of some
of the members were openly and serious
ly questioned in manner we'll calcu-
lated to destroy public confidence and to
bring odium on that important branch
of the government. There was no pre-
tense that to answer the questions would
eliminate the witnesses in any way, and
twas their clear duty as citizens to obey
the law. The refusal was at their peril,
and they must abide the consequences
prescribed by the statute. The court
cannot assume that the investigation
was intended as a mere idle, pFying pro-
ceeding without any ultimate aim or OBJ
ject. The questions had reference to
and sought to elicit information as to
whether the brokerage firm had bought
or sold sugar stocks in the interest of
any Senators or were carrying such
stocks for such Senators. Such inquiry
was plainly in the scope of the Senate
Committee. The questions set out in
the Indictment, and which the appel
lants refused to answer, were all peril
nent to the inquiry. The indictment is
good and sufficient, and the demurrer
thereto was properly overruled by the
court below and the judgments entered
on the demurrer in both cases must be
affirmed"
Chief Justice Alvey delivered the
opinion.