The times., 1897-06-27
Judge BradIey's Decisions Critic
ally Considered.
THE RIGHTS OF CONGRESS-
No Justification for the Conclusion
That the Methods of "a Legislative
Committee in Acquiring Lesiti-
mate Information Must Square
With Technical Court Rules.
To the Editor of The Times:

The structural w weakness of the decisions
of Judge Bradleyin II the cases resulting from
the sugar trust investigation is, first: In
confusing an investigating committee OF d
legislative body with a court oflaw, here
all tue formalities and technicalities oi the
law must be observed in its proceedings;
and secondly in assuming that slnasiituchas
subscriptions Oh contributions to the funds
of political parties for campaign purposes
are not unla W ful, it must be presumed that
the contributions of liayerneyerand Searies
were IF a private nature, and all questions
concerning these contributions therefore
impertincIit, unless it is made to appear az
firrnatively that the testimony ELECTED
would enaple the body directing tile in
uuiry to exercise some OF its constitutional
functions in dealing with its mcmbers; or,
Ia OTTER wonis, some ultimate Jurisdictionai
factmust be- made to appear as the object or
the testimony, before the authority TO ln-
stitute an inquiry can be recognized by
the courts.
committee of investigation is not
court. An investigation is not a tnai.
The facts brought out are called test
mony," and the same processes are used
to bring witnesses or books OF papers be-
fore it as in the courts OF law; but the
strict rules of evidence aud practices or
The courts are not applicable. There are
no parties luganU, no rules OF pleading
invoked, uo crosse examination and no
particular method OF examination adopted
The widest latitude is given hotf, In aCt;s-
tion and answer. 'Hearsay evidence is
received as we'll as direct testimony, te-
cause the purpose of the committee some
times is TO REQUIRE witness to disclose
the name of an informant and what he said,
with view to tIace to its original source
q given charge and TO get at the truth. The
method may be indil ect and crcuitous, but
if the object is to discover some fact per
tinent to TIE subJect-matter of inquiry.
this mode is peIfectly legitimate. For in
stance when Shriyer was asked TO dis
close the name of tie Congressman who
furnished him the material for his ne VS.
paper article, tie committee was entitled
20 an answer, for the reason that il might
nave been the means OF leading 10 the
truth OF falsity OF the charges made
Senator Lindsay. member of the com
nittee, expressed the correct idea when
ne said to the witness: IF We had this
Congressman,s name, we could summon
we had the manufacturer shame (who WAS
the alleged source of the Congressman s
information) we could summon him and
find out wliathe knows, and get at the facts,
instead of taking newspape rumors and
the statements of a man who declines 10
give the facts, but publishes articles viii
flying Senator'S
Now, of course, if the Congressmans
~ a Ff.
summoned TO testify, what the manufac-
turer told him would have been incom-
petent TO prove an issue in trial AZ law;
tiff it resulted in getting the truth from
the manufacturer as to what occurred in
the room at the Arlington Hotel, the tes-
timony OF the Congressman would have
been perfectly proper. As correctly con-
tended by the district attorney and his
assistant in their argument before the
court, there is quite difference between
the peruinency or relevancy OF a question
and its COMPETENCY. Testimony AZ
be pertinent and at the same
time incompetent. The question put
TO Shriver was pertinent, because the
object was to find out what occurred at
the alleged meeting of certain sugar tr-Ist
Officers and Democratic Senators, the
very essence of the newspaper charges;
but the evidence it might have brought be-
fore the committee from the Congressman
would have been incompetent to estab-
lish any fact, because it would have been
hearsay. + here is not a grand jury in the
United States, but adopts the same mo ie
of inquest for bringing In indictments:
hut, OF course, the indictments could only
be supported by competent and sufficient
evidence Cali it Star Chamber if you
viii, the proceeding is necessarily lin,
quisitorial,'' and is only effective TO the
extent that the 'inquistion is successful
It is a probing process like a bill of
discovery in chancery, and if the con-
science is sometimes pric1ed in tender
places il must be endured for the health of
the body politic. 1t is drag net; the fish
may be big or little or it may he water
haul. There is great deal Of sentimental,
rot abroad about a man CASTLE" where
the power of government may not enter
The Constitution does not say that there
can be no search of a man S house or seiZ-
uIe nf his private papers, but only that
there must be no unreasonable search or
seizure. What is reasonable or unreason-
able would depend upoa the facts and cir
cumstances of any particular case. 1t
would be strange anomalyin our system
IL the Government can appropriate a mans
property when the life of the nation is at
stake, even without compensation, and can
draft d citizen into the military service
against his will, If tits powerless to compel
information deemed necessary to protect
and preserve either branch of Con gress In
It's purity AID useful existence. For Of what
Use would Congress be after il became a
stencil ia the nostrils OF the people by rea-
son OF unanswered charges of corruption
or unpublished crimes of its members? 1t
would be like the Scriptural body of
death clinging to its victim, despaimg of
any power to throw ii off
In the Kiihourne case the court only
went SO far as to say that an invesd-
cation could not reach into tile private af-
fairs of citizen wholly disconnected from
any subJect-matter over which the House
of Representatives had constitutional 1ur;s-
diction: or, in other words, witness could
not be compelled to disclose his private
business in the disguise of an investiga tion
when no possible power existed in Congress
either to legislate OH the subjectmatter
OF the inquiry or to punish or expel MEM
Der on account of anything established
by tho inquiry. The court went no fur
ther than this, because the case did not
require them to do so. THERE'S denial Of
any general rower in Congress under the
Constitution TO punish for contempt, this
body hejng unlike the Parliament of Eng
land: but the power is clearly recognized
In any of the matters in which ether
house OF Congress may exercise judicial
functions, such as n judging of the elec-