The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1897-03-14
RBMANDED TO THE SHERIFF.
Judge Hughes Decision Regarding Law
renee and LeYingS.
The Supreme Court Grants Them a
Writ of Habeas Corpus and
Admits Them to Bail.

Judge Hughes courtroom was crowded
again yesterday morning in anticipation
of hearing his decision rendered on the
petition of Lawrence and LevingS of the
Examiner" staff for a writ of habeas
corpus to relieve them of their commit
ment in contempt by the Senate.
AT 9:45 o'clock Judge Hughes as
cended the bench and the buzz of con-
versation ceased and all ears and eyes
were turned attentively to catch the
purport of his decision.
He said that the time that had elapsed
since the case was submitted in court
had been so short that he had not been
able to do more than consult the various
authorities cited and he had therefore
been unable to prepare written opln-
ioA. He would state that, as he had an
nounced to counsel at the opening OF TINS
case he had requested Judge Hart to SIT
with him and the latter concurred with
him in the conclusions reached.
While it was admitted by counsel that
the court had power to issue the writ,
he would allude briefly to this power
He read the provision of the Penal Code
and said that an examination OF the
section showed conclusively that, no
matter what the cause of detention,
the court has power to issue the writ,
and while there is no direct statutory
authority that the court has power TO
admit to bail, other than the decisions OF
the courts and Supreme Court, the
practice prevails universally. The rea-
son of the rule is apparent. The petit
ton shows that the prisoner claims to
be unlawfully restrained and while his
application is pending, he should not be
restrained. With reference to any limi-
tation of the courts authority in refer
ence to what it can investigate, the de-
cisions of the courts of this State are
not in conflict, and there are decisions
on that point in other States also. He
read from the decision in ex parte Cohn,
55th Cal, p. 1913, in regard to the inquiry
of the court, to the effect that its inquiry
cannot extend beyond the question of
jurisdiction and the validity of the pro-
ceedings. He also read from several
other decisions.
1t therefore appears. he said, that the
only inquiry the court is permitted to
make in it's investigation is-did the
Senate of the State of California have
jurisdiction in this case and is its war
rant regular on the face OF II! mat the
Senate has given directions to investi-
gate the charges of bribery of its MEM
bers has been shown by counsel for re-
spondents and it showed clearly to his
mind that it had jurisdiction. The reso-
luton is mixed with other matters, as to
whether the members had been Hbeled,
but il is not necessary to discuss Whe-
Their the Senate had jurisdiction in that
matter or not. The decision in the Nc
Carthy case Goth Cal, p. $3.50 indicates
that ii does.
He read from Section %. Article "
of the Constitution, showing that wit
nesses must testify when called on,
which, he said, even conceding that the
Senate had not inherent power, unques-
tionably confers on it the power to
make the investigation of bribery cases
and that it may pursue whatever mode
it p!eases. and regardless of the mode
a material issue is made on which to
proceed. To his mind, the questions to
the witnesses were material to the in
vestigation and he had come to the con-
clusion that the Senate acted in accord