The times., 1897-04-20
Decree of, District Court Affirmed
by the Supreme Court.
THIRTY DAYS BEHIND BARS
Defendants Vigorous Legal Fight.
Senute's Demand for Information
Quite Within Its Jurisdiction.
Questions Were Not Intrus!ons
Into citizeh's Affairs.

corpus ana CertiuIdli eases ol EiFcTlOH
r. Chapman stock broker They affirmed
the decree of the District court and Ie-
fused the writs Of certiorari and habeas
corpus MI Chapman is under sentence
from the criminal court Of the District 10
nav IA fine Of 500 and serve thirty days
in the District jail, and these petitions
were apparently the last resort of q long
continued legal fight. ltis the opinion Of
legal experts that the gentleman willnow
he forced to pay the fine and undergo the
imprisonment.
The opinion of the Supreme Court was de
livered by Chief Justice Fuller yesterday
AFTERNOON II was a long one and its
reading occupied half an hour. The merits
of the case were fully gone into.
The story of the case up TO the present
time, rs stated by the couro, Is as follows:
On the lst of October, 1894, the grand
iury of the District supreme court found an
indictment against Chapman, resident
OF New York city, for contempt
The indictment averred that the House
OF Representatives had passed certain
tariff bilI-the Wilson bill of 1S94-amOng
the amendments to which We're certain ones
proyiding for duties on sugar different
from the provisions OF the bill as it had
been sent to the Senate, the adoption ar
r., ,,iection of which by the Senate would
materially affect the market value of the
stock of the American Sugar Refining
Company.
Certain lie wspapers charged members of
the Senate with yielding to corrupt in
fluences in their consideration Of this legis
lation The Senate adopted resolutions
raising a special committee and giving it
full power of investigating the charges.
During the course OF the einveStigatiOnt hap
man, a member of firm of stock brokers
in New York, dealing In the stock Of the
sugar company, appeared as a witness and
was asked whether his firiu had bought
ar sold sugar at the time during which the
alleged corruption of Senators occurred
I'm the months OF February, March, April
and May, 1894, for or in the interest,
directly, or indirectly, OF any Senator.
To these questions Chapman refused To
answer, although they were pertinent TO
the inquiry Of the committee.
Chapman filed demurrer 10 the indict-
ITent. alleging among other objections, the
| ,Inconsti,utinnality OF the acts Of Con
gress on which the indictment was based.
| The demurrer was overrulcd. The court OF
| from the order overrulng the demurrer, and
| sunseuueutly affirmed it, Chapman then
| appled to the supreme court for leave to
| file petition for writ of haheas corpus,
| which application was denied Chapman
then filed petition in the court of appeals
| for writ OF prohibition 10 prevent the
trial court from unlawfully assuming juris-
diction to try him, and this also was de
| MED
His trial was proceeded with, and YER
| dict OF guilty WAS rendered. Motions III az
| rest or judgment ana fora new trial were
| made and oyerruled, and on February /,
| 1896. the trial court passed its sentence.
| He then appealed TO the court uf ap-
| peals. which affirmed the Judgment pf the
i trial court, but allowed writ Of error u
| remove the cause TO the Supreme Court FOR
| review This was dismissed for want OF
| jurisdiction
| Chairman then made the petition for
habeas corpus and certiurari under con-
| sideratiuu, alleging that the acts of Cor
gress, under which he was prosecuted, were
| unconstitutional. and that his imprison-
| ment was unlawful.
| The opinion there cites sections 102, lO3,
1O4 and 500 of the Revised Statutes
AS to section 1913, relating to witness
| refusing TO testify on the ground that ms
testimony might incriminate him, the
opinion says that from the record OF
| the proceedings of the trial, accompanying
| and made part of the petition, 1T appears
| that petitioner, in declining to answer the
| questions, propounded, expressly y stated that
| he did not do so on the ground that To
| answer might expose him or tend to ex-
| pose him to criminal prosecution. section
| 1O3, therefore, had, in fact, no bearing
| on the controversy in regard 10 this VIII
ness, and it is difficult to see how he can
| properly raise the question as to its con-
| stltutionality."
| Sections 02 and 104 were intended To
| enforce the attendance of witnesses on
| the summons of either house of Congress
| and to testify before them. AS to the Con-
| stitutionaiity of these sections dud the
| question raised by Mr.. Chapman cniiHsel
that where the Senate has the right TO
| punish, and is also allowed TO certi!y q
case to the District court for trial, such
| action placing recalcitranI Witlless
twice in jeopardy, the opinion states tlat
1.-THE refusal to answer pertinent q:les-
| tions In q matter of inquiry within the
jurisdi ction of the Senate of course con
stitutes a contempt of that body, ana Is
also made an offense against the United
States
But, although the power to punish SUI
remains with it, we must decline TO de
eide that this law is invalid because IL
provides that contumacy in witness
called to testify in a matter properly
under consideration by 1t and deliberately
refusing to answer questions eitnent
thereto. shall be II nisdemeanor against
the United States.
1t is quite clear that the contumaclou'
witness is not subjected to jeopardy twice
| for the same offense, since the same ac
may be an offcnse against one jurisdiction
| and also against another, and indictabit
statutory Cffenses may be punished al
such, while the offenders may likeWIS'
be subjected to punishment for the same
acts as coutempts, the two heing capable
of standing together.
The opinion recites that there is muc
difference between the Chapman case ant
the Ki,bourn case, referred to by the peti
toner.
The subject matter as affecting th
Senate was within the jurisdiction Of th
Senate The questions were not intrusion
J | into the affairs OF the citizen; they did mol
seek TO ascertain any facts as to the con
duct methods, extent or details of the firm
in question.
) This decision of the Supreme Court is
NEST important one, not Only TO The 2tle
gentleman now probably shortly to oe tFie'
under indictments filed against them nj TN
same time with the Chapman indictmt;n'
but also to the legal world, and becwls
| of IT'S S,gaening findings as to the consul