Evening star., 1897-03-24
Arguments Submitted to the United
States Supreme Court.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ASKEl
Grounds of the Petition Presented
by Counsel.
EMINENT TTORN EYS

end A. J. Dittenhoefer submitted argu-
ments to show why the court should issue
writ of habeas corpus in the case of Ell
verton r. Chapman Mr.. ]. M. Wilson,
also Of counsel for the petitioner. was not
able to be present in court as he is suffer
ing from the grip.
History of the Case.
1t will be remembered that Mr.. Chapman,
hen summoned before a committee of the
Senate during the investigation of the
sugar trust in 1894, refused to answer ques-
tions regarding the matter under inquiry,
and was thereupon indicted by the grand
jury of the District of Columbia for al
legged violation of section 1O2 of the Revised
Statutes Of the United States.
Thereafter petitioner was arraigned and
entered plea of not guilty, upon which
plea trial was had, resulting in a verdict of
guilty as indicted. Motions for a new trial
and an arrest of judgment were filed and
cverruled, and the petitioner sentenced to
imprisonment in the jail Of the District OF
Columbia for the period of one month from
the date of arrival, and to pay fine of
500, from which judgment an appeal was
also taken to the Court of Appeals. where
the same was thereafter affirmed. The pc
titfoner thereupon prosecuted writ OF error
to remove said cause to the Supreme Court
for review, but the same was dismissed,
by decision of the Supreme Court, for want
of jurisdiction to review the decisions Of
the said Court Of Appeals in criminal cases.
After the decision of the Court Of APP
reals of the District of Columbia overru-
ing the demurrer, and before trial was had
upon the defendants plea of not guilty.
petitioner made application to this court
for a writ of habeaS corpus, but the same
was denied, upon the ground that such ap-
plication should be made, il at all, after
trial had and other remedies exhausted.
Thereupon. and before petitioner was tried
rron his plea of not guilty, petitioner made
application to said Court Of Appeals for a
writ of prohibition TO prevent such trial.
TIE same was denied by that court, and
writ of error prosecuted by the petitioner
to the Supreme Court of the United States.
where the same is now pending. Then the
petitioner came to the Supreme Court for
u writ Of habeas corpus and certiorari, the
application for a habeas corpus only being
argued today.
Counsel before the court today contended
that the act of Congress upon which the
indictment was based and conviction had
is unconstitutional. Counsel argued that
section JOB provides that he shall not be
privileged to refuse to testify on the ground
that his testimony or the production of
the paper may tend to disgrace him or
render him infamous. These two sections
are parts Of one scheme and they are in
separable. The provisions of this act are
In substance and effect, precisely as though
1t had been enacted as follows: If any per-
son. summoned before a committee of the
Senate. shall refuse to testify, even though
his testimony may tend to criminate him.
he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor
and shall be punished etc.
1t was also claimed that section 1O2 of
the Revised Statutes, upon which this
indictment is based, is attempt to dele
gate to the courts the power of the re-
spective houses to punish for contempt,
and is unconstitutional for that reason.
IT is plainly" it was contended. be
~ hG,f fIr-r hn,
gress to strip either of the houses of
any of those powers and functions which
are bestowed by the Constitution on the
houses respectively, either expressly or by
implication. 1t Is conceded everywhere
and is thoroughly settled. that the power
OF the two houses to punish for contempt
comes to them as incidental to. and by
virtue of, the functions which they derive
from the Constitution. In other words
the power of the houses to punish for con-
tempt. whatever the extent of that power
may be. Is an incident Of the powers they
get from the Constitution to be parts of
the supreme legislature of the United
States, to pass laws and to adjudicate mat
ters over which the Constitution gives to
them. respectively, the power of adjudica-
The Pacific Railway Commission.
The following paragraph of the syllabus
Of the case In re Pacific Railway commits
sion was submitted hy counsel:
Congress cannot compel the production
Of private books and papers of citizens for
Its inspection, except in the course of
judicial proceedings. or in suits instituted
for that purpose; and then only upon aver
ments that its rights in some way are de-
pendent upon evidence therein contained"
On page go in the opinion by Justice
Field, this Is repeat ted in these words:
:" In the pursuit of knowledge it (the
commission) cannot compel the production
Of private books and papers of citizens for
its inspection. except in the progress of
judicial proceedings, in suits instituted
for that purpose. and in both cases only
upon averments that its rights are in some
way dependent for enforcement upon the
evidence of those books and papers.
OF all the rights of citizen few are
of greater Importance or more essential
to his peace and happiness than the right
Of personal security; that involves not
merely protection of his person from as
sauit. but exemption of his private affairs
books and papers from the inspection ard
scrutiny of others. Without this right all
others would lose half their value
This statement. regarding when the
courts will compel unwilling defendant
to exhibit to his adversary. or to others, his
private papers, is based upon the principles
of equity, established In this country and in
England, from time immemorial. and this
element of our law has been embodied in
the statutes Of 14th and 18th Victoria and
other later English statutes: and also in the
statutes Of the United States, such as Sec
and others When Justice Field here says
that in each Of these classes of cases the
production Of books and papers can only be
ordered upon averments that the appli-
cant's rights are In some way dependent
for enforcement upon the evidence of these
books and papers, his statement falls far
short Of stating the strictness with which
the law surrounds and protects such prt-
vate books and papers.
Applicable to Legislative Bodies
Restraints upon the courts, created by
the fourth and fifth amendments to the
Constitution, protective Of private rights
and liberties, are equally applicable to pro-
ceedings in legislative bodies. To impose
the restraints. created by said amendments
to the Constitution. upon the courts. which
are the most enlightened. the most con-
servative and the most highly educated tri-
bunals known to our law. and which from
long before the origin of our government
and ever since. have been and are uniyers-
ally regarded as the safest repositories of
the liberties and rights Of the citizen. and
at the same time to leave thern to be dis
regarded by the legislative bodies. and the
committees thereof, and to place ali pri-
vate property and private and domestic
rights and affairs at the mercy of any and
every member Of such COMMITTEES hrwaI-or