Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-01-07
The Court ofAppeals Decides Against
the Recusant Witnesses.
Case OF CHAPMAN AND MCCARTNEY
They Must Abide the Consequence
of Their Refusal.
NDICTM ARE GOOD

The Court of Appeals this afternoon
handed down an opinion in the case of
Elverton r. Chapman and John w. Ma
cartney, indicted last summer for refusing
to answer certain questions asked then,
by Senator Gray's sugar trust investigat-
ing committee, affirming the judgment of
Judge Cole. rendered several weeks ago.
overriding the demurrer filed by the de-
PENDANTS to the indictments returned
against them.
The opinion, written by Chief Justice
Alvey. is quite a lengthy one, and after
stating the nature of the case presented,
states that in support of the demurrer
several positions were strongly and in
geniously urged in arguments, but that the
court considered and determined the case
as fully embraced by the three following
questions:
LIST. Is the ection 1O2 of the Revised
Statutes constitutional and valid?
I'd. Was the inquiry directed by the Sem
ate within the power of the Senate to exc
cute by requiring witnesses to testify?
I'd. Were the questions propounded to the
defendants pertinent to Subject-matter of
inquiry that the committee was charged
to investigate?
With respect to the first question, the
chief Justice says that the court can en-
tertain no doubt. That section, with some
unlmportant omissions and changes of
phraseolOgy. embodies the first section for
the act of Congress of January "a, 1857,
entitled AN act to more effectually enforce
the attendance of witnesses the sum-
mons of either house of Congress and to
compel them to discover testimony" That
Congress possessed the constitutional power
to enact this statute to enforce the attend
ance of witnesses and to compel them to
make disclosure of evidence to enable the
respective bodies to discharge their legiu
o1y nf ri
question. Such power is both natural and
appropriate, and, indeed necessary, says
the court
1t was urged in argument, explains the
chief justice. that the terms of section 1O2
include a class of witnesses protected and
exempted by article V of the Constitution,
and especially so when read, as 1t should
be, in connection with the next succeeding
section. 1O3. and that, therefore. the section
is void in toto. But to this the court does
not agree
1t was also contended in argument, ex-
plains the chief justice, that the act of
gate it's power and jurisdiction or the power
and jurisdiction of the several houses to
punish for contempt to the courts, and
that therefore, the statute is void. But to
That the court cannot accede, for the stat
ute has never been understood either by
Congress or by the courts. as having any
such purpose That was shown by the case
of Irwin, who was committed by the House
OF Representatives in 1878 for refusing to
testify and who unsuccessfully attempted
to be relieved on habeas corpus. And so
in the case of kilbourn, in 1876. In the lat
ter case, given great consideration by the
Supreme Court, 1T was never suggested nor
intimated that Congress had or had at
tempted to divest itself of and delegate to
the courts the power to punish for con-
tempt in cases to which the power of each
house properly extended by the act of 1857.
Within It's Jurisdiction.
AS to the question of whether the matter
OF inquiry was within the power of the
Senate to execute by requiring witnesses
to testify, Chief Justice Alvey says that
the court had great difficulty in clearly and
marking the boundaries within
which either house of Congress may act
with coercive power to compel the dis
closure of facts deemed important to it.
and the rights of the citizen to exemp-
ton from inquiry into his private affairs.
That question was most deliberately con-
sidered in the Kilbourne case which case
was presented in a somewhat different as
pect from the present one. 1t must how
ever, be considered as established by that
case that while within certain limits and
for certain purposes either house may
where the examination of witnesses and
the production of papers are necessary to
the performance of it's legal and constitu-
tional functions, fine and impriSon a con-
tumacious witness. yet the Constitution in
vests neither house with any general
power to punish for contempt
In that case it was also held that the
question whether either house of Congress- |
acting in the case of a witness refusing to |
testify, had proceeded within the limits |
md scope of it's constitutional authority, is |
judicial question, and one not to be con- |
;luded by the Judgment of the
,ody itself. In other words, that the |
House taking action in such case |
8 body of limited and restricted powers, |
md whenever powers are exercised in ex- |
'ess or beyond the limits of those consti-
utionally possessed by the House. its ac-
ion can afford protection to no one acting |
lnder its unauthorized order of command. |
The Senate Seriously Interested.
In the present case, states the chief JUS
ice, the subject matter referred to the
committee for investigation was altogether
lifferent in it's nature, and involves aues-
ions and consequences wholly unlike the |
subject matter referred to the committee
n the Kilbourn case. 1t was matter i'm
nediately ard most seriously affecting the
senate itself and the great legislative trust
onhded to its members by the people or
ne states of the Union. The dignity of
he body and the integrity and purity of |
ONE of its members were openly and
eriously questioned and that, too, says
he chief justice, in a manner well caIcu-
ated to destroy public confidence in and
ring odium and reproach upon that inn
ortant branch of our national legislature
In proceeding as it did, the court holds
within It's constitutional rights and DOW
rs. And, says Chief Justice Alvey, there
3 no pretense that the answers to the
uesticns propounded would or could GRIM
nate the witnesses in any way and 1t |
;as their clear duty as citizens to obey |
he law and to answer the quest with
ut respect to the persons to be affected. |
heir refusal was at their peril, and they
lust abide the consequences prescribed by
he statute. The subject matter of inquiry
e;ng within the jurisdiction of the Senate,
be court cannot assume that it intended
he Investigation as a mere idle, prying
lquistive proceeding, without ultimate
i'm or object The court must assume
nat the object and design of inquiry were
ltended for legitimate purposes and not
Or the accomplishment of that which |
ould be unlawful
The Questions Pertinent.
Referring to the pertinency of the ques-
ons propounded to the defendants by
le committee, the court holds that they
ad reference to and sought to elicit in
'rmation whether the stockholders firm
which the defendants belonged had
ought or sold during the months of Feb +
larry, March, April and May, 1894 sugar
ocks for or in the interest, directly or |
of any Senator, or were carry
g such stocks for the said Senators, and |
lat such an inquiry was plainly within |