The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1897-03-13
TAKEN UNDER ADJUSTMENT.
Judges Hughes and Hart Listen to The
Application
Of Lawrence and Levings for Release
From the Contempt Commit
ment by the Senate.

Judge Hughes courtroom was filled to
overlooking yesterday morning, the at
traction being the application on writ
of habeas corpus by Managing Editor
Lawrence of the Examiner" and l.. L..
LevingS, a reporter on the same pa
per for release from the County Jail,
to which they had been committed by
the Senate for contempt in refusing to
answer questions propounded by it as
to the source of information regarding
the charges of bribery made by the pa
per in relation to the votes on A. B..
273.
AS the time for the opening of court
approached the room began to fill, until
every available space was taken, and
those who could not obtain seats stood
up wherever they could squeeze in.
At 1910 a. m. Judges Hughes and
Hart took their seats, and the former
called the case.
Attorney McEnerny called on the
Sheriff to file his return, and Deputy
Attorney General Anderson filed the
return, and McEnerny filed reply as
far as regarded Lawrence and Levings.
Judge Hughes said he would like to
know if the attorneys for respondent
a writ of habeas corpus.
Deputy Attorney General Anderson
said they did not question his right to
grant the writ, but had grave doubts as
to his power to admit to bail.
Attorney McEnerny read the decis-
ion in San Francisco case, in which
Justice Garoutte admitted a person to
bail on habeas corpus proceedings, and
i
the present case, as long as his right to
admit to bail was not questioned.
Judge Hughes said the investigation
was not pertinent at this time. The
bail matter was a past event in this
case, and he was content to rest on the
practice that has prevailed in the
courts.
McEnerny then recited the history of
the case. Lawrence, he said, had been
called by the Senate and asked him if
he had been told that anyone had been
Influenced to vote for the bill. He re-
fused to answer, on the ground that it
was Irrelevant and only hearsay. The
case here is to ascertain if a person
who testifies that he has no Informal
ton on a matter can be compelled by
the Legislature to testify concerning
them, and whether the Senate has not
overstepped it's authority. and if the
petitioners are not entitled to the pro-
lection of the court.
He quoted from Mcdonald VS.. Keller
and other New York cases; Stockdale
VS.. Hansard, a case in which the Eng
lish Parliament was concerned, and
Kilburn VS.. Thompson, 1913 United
States Reports-all pointing to the
right of the accused to be heard in
court. He quoted other cases to show
that persons cannot be punished for
contempt in cases where the court has
no Jurisdiction.
The point he wanted to make was
that the judgment of the courts is al
ways open for review on habeas cor
pus on the point of jurisdiction. Kill
bOurn VS.. Thompson was the strong
est case he said. The principle in this
case underwent examination in in re
Hollis in this State.
The fourth point. which he said is the
hinge on which the whole case turns, is
settled in Kilbourn VS.. Thompson. 1913
L. 5. Reports, to wit: The Legislature
has no power by investigation and Of
adjudication in a proceeding of con-
tempt to act in judicial manner in
matters relating to action concerning
the legislators as individuals. That is
TO say, the Legislature has power only
except as to expulsion of its members
TO investigate in matters relating di-
reCtly to some action that the Legisla-
ture has the power to take. The Leg
islature il asking a private witness
who denies direct knowledge of an al
legged fact, who told you?" seeks to
inquire into a matter that would give