The San Francisco call., 1897-03-13
Assistant Attorneys General
Argue That the Court Has
No Jurisdiction.
FAKERS CANNOT ESCAPE THE
PUNISHMENT.
The Case of Mccarthy Quoted to
Show the Power of the
Legislature.

five hours OF argument In the habeas cor
pus cases of Long Green Lawrence and L.
L. Levings. sentenced 10 jail for contempt
by the Senate, Judge Hughes took the
matter under advisement until tomorrow
morning at $50 O'Clock.
Both prisoners were present. They
were represented by Garret McEnerney
and Andrew ]. Clunie, though the latter
took no active part whatever in the court
room proceedings. The Senate was repre-
sented by Assistant Attorney-General w.
Ii. Anderson and Deputy Attorney-Gen-
eral C. N. Post. As on the day previous,
the courtroom was crowded, and most of
the audience remained in attendance
throughout the entire hearing, notwith-
standing there were no flights OF elo-
quence or exciting verbal passages-at-
arms.
| Throughout the presentation OF the
case for the petitioners there were the
same broad ad m issions of the fake article
OF February 81 having been published by
the Examiner on ruinor and hearsay.
BY Judge Hughes side sal Judge Hart
After the return OF the Sherifffon the
had been duly filed, McEnerney flied
reply of the petitioners. MeEnerney the
again attempted to bring up The question
of the right OF Judge to release prisoner
on bail pending the hearing on writ Of
habeas corpus.
Anderson questioned this right and Nc.
Enerney cited mum Der OF cases in which
such action had been taken by the Su-
preme Court. He claimed that this had
been the practice of the Supreme Court for
forty years.
Anderson alleged that bail was only ac-
cepted in such cases when the respondent
did not question the right OF the court in
the premises.
Judge Hughes evidently had no great
desire TO have this matter argued, and de-
cIarcd that the investigation of this propo-
sition at this time was not pertinent.
"The right 10 issue the writ, he said sis
not contested. The question of bail con-
Germs action that has been taken by the
court and it is past history. Throughout
the Union it is the practice IN Superior
and Supreme courts to release prisoners
on bail uuder similar circumstances, and
do not care TO hear any further discus
sion on that proposition. Proceed to the
main que stion OF the case"
McEnerney, after reviewing the incl
dents that led up to the present situation,
stated that one of the questions was:
.'Can legislative body, investigating
charge like this, compel witness to tes-
thy as TO what he had been told" Such
testimony, he declared, would be hearsay
and not complete. His second proposition
onsisted OF the question: HAS the Sem
ate Jurisdiction TO make the inquiry to
which the questions propounded to Law.
renee and Levings were directed" He
claimed that if it had not such jurisdic-
tion the questions were not material and
there was no contempt.
In the endeavor to prove that there
was no Jurisdiction in the matter on ths
part of the Senate, or rather that the
Senate had overstepped its powers in en-
deavorlng to inquire into slanuerous
and libelous attack on the members of the
Senate, lie quoted from the resolution
adopted by the Senate. This provided
for an investigation relative to the bribery
charges and also for the punishment OF
any one found guilty of having slandered
ana libeled the Senate or any of its MEM
bers in IL cir official capacity.
McEnerney alleged that the Senate had
absolutely no power to go into the ques-
ZION of slander and libel. Setting forth
his third proposition he said: The judg-
ments of courts are always open to review
in court for want OF jurisdiction, and the
same principle applies to legislative
| bodies"
His fourth point was that the Legislature
has no general power of investigation.
and that it has no power to use the
machinery of the Legislature to ascertain
| for private persons whether or not pub
| Iished article is slanderous or libelous.
| The remedy for SANDER and libel, he said,
is IN the courts. either. by criminal or
civil action.
| He concluded by an argument tending
! to show that the questions asked of both
Lawrence and Levines were immateriai,
irrelevant and incompet tent. Throughout
| the argument numerous citations were
made from the habeas-corpus jurispru-
dence of this country and of England.
! Assistant Attorney-General Anderson
/ controverted by competent and late
authorities and decisions the stand taken
/ by McEnerney. After calling attention to
the fact that McEnerney had admitted
| that the Senate had Jurisdiction to inves-
4 tigate charges of bribery he claimed that
the resolution adopted by the Senate pro-
viding for the inquiry could at the most
only be held invalid so far as the matter
| OF inquiring into the slanderous or LABEL.