Evening star., 1897-04-19
cHAPMANs CASE DECIDED
Supreme Court Has Refused His Applica-
tion for Writ Of Habeas Corpus.
Decision of the District Court Amrm.
ed-Chief Justice Fuller De-
Iivered the Opinion.

The Supreme Court today refused the ap-
pdcation for writ of certiorari and habeas
corpus asked for by Elverton r. Chapman
the broker who refused to testify in the
sugar speculation investigation whether
senators had speculated in sugar stocks
while the Wilson tariff bill was before that
body
Chief Justice Fuller, who delivered the
opinion, held that the Senate, under its
constitutional right to censure and expel
members. had the right to investigate any
alleged improper conduct, of senator's, and
could compel witnesses to give testimony
The sentence of the supreme court of the
District of Columbia to thirty days in Jail
and 500 fine was affirmed, and Chapman's
application for writs of eertiorarf and ha-
beaS corpus were denied.
brokers Mccartney and Seymour, Messrs
Havemeyer and Searles of the sugar trust
correspondents E. j. Edwards of the Phil
adelphia Press and John S. Shriver of the
New York Mail and Express, all refused to
give testimony before the investigating
committe. and are affected by the decision
MT. chapman Is the only recalcitrant
witness who has been tried by the courts
lis being test case.
Different From the kiIbourn Case.
The chief justice said the case was en-
tirely different from the Kflbourn case
n
ate, he said. was within the Jurisdiction
of the Senate. The questions were not in
trusions into the affairs of the citizen: they
did not seek to ascertain any facts as to
the conduct, methods. extent or details of
Ine nrm in question, but only whether that
nrm confessed they engaged in buying and
selling stocks and as to the particular stock
named was employed by any senator TO
buy or sell for him any of that stock whose
market price might be affected by the SEN
ates action. We cannot regard these oues-
tions as amounting to an unreasonable
search into the private affairs of the wit
ness simply because he may; have been in
some degree connected with the alleged
transactions, and as inves tieatfons of this
sort are within the power; of the two
houses they cannot be defeated on purely
sentimental grounds" 3
Continuing, he said the sTestions were
entirely pertinent, and that the question Of
what the Senate might do as a result Of
the inquiry was not involved. 1t was plain
that negative answers would have cleared
the Senate of what were regarded as of
fensive imputations, while affirmative an
sWers might have led to further action on
the part OF the Senate within its constitu-
tional powers.
Within the sefrate's hsrers.
The court held that the matter was en-
tirely within, the constitutional powers of
the Senate. The right to e1eDel extends TO
the judgment of the Senate Is Inconsistent
with the trust and duty et a. menahAr. said
the chief justice, ard the resalution- under
winch the inquiry was conducted Indicated
that the TRANSACTIONS. referred to were
deemed by the Senate feprehensble and de-
serving OF condemnation and punishment.
The court held also that the refusal to
answer questions was not only 4 contempt
of that body. but that it was also an Of
tense against tie United States. Congress
possessed the constitutions power to enact
statute to compei the attendance of wit
nesses and to compel them to make dis
closures of evidence to enable the respect
I've bodies to discharge their legitimate
iunctions; and 1t was to effect this that the
law OF 1857 was passed, but this act did
not constitute delegation of the power to
punish for contempt
But while 1t was true that the offenses
might De involved, 1T was improbable that in
any case accumulat.ye penalties would be
imposed. whether by imposing penalties
merely or of eliciting the answers desired.
put 1t was quite clear that the contumacious
witness VII .s is not subjected to- jeopardy twice
1or the same offense, since the same act
may De an onense against one jurisdic ton
and also against another; and indictable
statutory offenses may be punished as such
jectcd to punishment for the same acts as
contempts, the two being capable of stan1-
Ing together.
Effect of the Decfsion.
The decision Of the Supreme Court in the
Chapman case will have very important
bearing on Investigations by Congress in
the future. Heretofore there has been
recognized no power in congressional
committee to compel witnesses to testify.
Many Investigations have failed through
the u1willingness of witnesses to testify
and the inability of Congress to compel
them to- This decision supplies rem
edy and hereafter it will not be a trtfiIng
matter to refuse to answer questions put
by properly authorized committee. For
years a congressional investigation has
been regarded as largely a. thing to be
disregarded and laughed at. This will
no longer be the case. The only way in
which testimony may be avoided is by not
appearing in Washington. I'm the investi-
cation Of the sale of bonds by Mr.. Cleve-
lard to syndicate the committee went
to New York to examine Witnesses. The
most important witnesses refused TO tes-
tify in response to certain questions. and
the committee had no power to compel
them. No report was made: by the COM
mittee.