Evening star., 1897-06-01

llshing any connection between the wi
dence that was sought by these questions
and the ultimate fact toward which the
investigation was directed.
1T would appear that when these ques-
tons were put to the witness, the defend
ant In this case, the committee were not
In possession of any information or of any
suggestion that would tend to make the
necessary connection between, those ques-
t1ons and the questions which the COM
mittee were investigating.
Questions Not Pertinent.
Under such circumstances the pertinency
OF these questions to the subject matter of
the investigation. or, to use the language
of section 102, to the question under in
quiry.' being absolutely and entirely want
ing, 1t must be held that the defendant
was under no obligation to answer those
questions; that they related exclusively to
the private affairs of the American Sugar
Refining Company and were entirely un-
connected with the conduct or the action
OF any senator; that If they were pertinent
to the inquiries directed to be made by the
committee, literally construed, and IL they
could be considered as authorized and di-
rected by the Senate Of tile United States
such inquiries were beyond its power, as
unWarranted infrusions into the private
affairs of the citizen .7
Another question has been raised, with
reference to the attitude of the commit
tee as Whole to the questions asked. and
~ lAe dIeSeu COnttlHldCy Oh the Witness.
The questions were put by Senator Allen,
not by the chairman of the committee
Senator Allen, in common with other men,
bers OF the committee. as 1t appears by
inquiries Of the witness who was under
examination. That right cannot be ques-
toned; and. If a witness before the COM
| mittee refusing to answer. on the ground
OF privilege or on any other ground that
| was deemed sufficient by him, a question
put by any member of the committee, were
advised by the committee that the ques-
uon was put by Its authority, and that it
| insisted upon an answer, the contumacy of
| the witness upon refusing to answer after
such advice would be complete In the
| case CT the defendant. however, it ap-
pears that he was not advised that the
| answer was insisted upon by any one.
As to Contumaey.
After his refusal to answer the ques-
tions that were put, his examination pro-
| ceeded at great length. He was examined
before the committee on the 18th dav of
June, 1894. His contumacy was reported
to the Senate by the committee on the 21st
day OF June, 1894. after his examination
had been completed and he had been dis
charged as witness. Ordinarily when In
! open court a witness refuses to answer q
question put by counsel, he can not be re-
garded as being in contempt of court Until
% ms rignt TO decline to answer has been
| passed upon by the court. The court must
determine the propriety Of the question,
and the necessity of an answer, and ad-
wise the witness of such determination
| ana the witness must then decline to an
| swer before he can be deemed to be guilty
OF contempt of court in refusing to an
| swer. i
| Faults Pointed Out.
I'm this case 1t would seem that it woul6
! have been at least a reasonable act fol
the interrogator to apply to the committee
to adopt the question as its own or to in.
sist upon an answer. or to SO advise the
! witness, certainly before he could be deem
ed guilty of contempt Of the committee
He could not have been deemed in con
tempt of the Senate for the purposes o
contumacy proceeding until he had beer
brought before the bar of the Senate anl
he then persisted In his refusal to answer
i very much doubt whether, under thi
circumstances OF this case, IL the question
were pertinent to the subject matter un
der inves tifsation by the committee, ans
that committee as the arm of s1he Senat.
mad power to make the inquiry, the wit
ness would be In contempt, and, guilty of
misdemeanor under this statute until h,
. mad been advised that persistence In hi
reIusai would subject him to appropriate
pehaities. DO not regard!it as essential
however, that the decision of this cas-
should be put upon that Grpund / deter
mine merely that the questionssasked wer
not pertinent to a proper construction o
the resolution directing the inyestigatin,
inquiry. and that il the fnduiry be con
| strued to mean what was contended 70
1t, that 1t was beyond the Jurisdiction O
the Senate"