The advocate., 1897-06-09
THE DECISION In THE DAVIS CASE.

OphAuAAVOoV VI Vuo AAob inAuVNAOS nAVoA VAA"u
body had adjourned sine die, had consti.
tutionsl authority and legal power to
punish witness for contempt in refus-
ing to answer questions put to him by
the committee, Representative T. @.
Davis, witness before the bribery inves-
tigation committee appointed by the late
Legislature Of Kansas, and who refused
to answer certain questions, was ordered
into custody by the committee and the
case was taken to the Supreme Court on
petition for the writ Of hGbeGS corpus.
Last Saturday the opinion Of the court
was delivered, two of the Justices
Johnston and Allen-agrseing against
the power Of the committee to punish,
and Doster, dissenting, for the power.
The leading points in the opinions OF
Doster and Allen will be found on our
first page this week. twill be seen that
both Justices have given the subject
careful attention, and it is matter for
regret that loose and ill-advised criti-
cisms Of Judge Allen are floating in the
political atmosphere. 1t is not very long
since the late Judge David Martin
agreed with his judicial associate Allen
in case Of great public Importance, and
some Republican politicians denounced
him for not holding with his political
brother, Johnston, just as some Populist
politicians are now denouncing Allen for
not holding with his political associate,
Doster. And as Republicans assigned
no reason other than partisan for their
treatment Of Martin, so POpulists now
offer no better reason for their harsh
treatment of Allen,
This subject is one Of great impor-
tsnce. 1t reaches to the very foundations
Of popular liberty, 1t involves the lib
erty Of the citizen and the freedom Of
the State. No off-hand treatment of it
is adequate; no mere party gush will
settle it. The ADVOCATE Of April % last
called attention to the general question
involved, and advised the enactment Of
law covering the case Of witnesses re-
fusing to testify before legislative COM
mittees. In that article we said:
Kansas needs law that will provide for
compelling witnesses to testify before COM
mittees Of the Legislature concerning any and
all matters involving the honor Of its mem
bers, the exercise Of its powers, or the admin.
istratlon of Its rules.
And we referred TO the treatment Of
recalcitrant witnesses in the sugar trust
investigation. The law under which
Broker Chapman was indicted, tried,
convicted and punished is found in Sec
tion 102 Of the Revised Statutes Of the
United States, and reads as follows:
Every person who, having been summoned
as witness by the authority Of either house
Of Congress, TO give testimony or to produce
papers upon any matter under inquiry before
either house OF Congress, willRully makes de.
fault, or who, having appeared, refuses to an.
swer any question pertinent to the question
under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty Of o
misdOmeanor, punishable by a fine Of not
more than one thousand dollars nor less than
one hundred dollars, and by imprisonment in
a common jail for not less than one month nor
more than twelve months.
The mode Of procedure is found in Sec
tion l04.
That law was approved January "a,
1857, and it was enacted to cover just such
cases under National law as this Davis
case in Kansas under State law. Under
the constitution Of the United States
the judicial power is vested in the courts,