New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-01-25

,,,pr WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE
CAN DELEGATE ITS POWERS.

o,,rsq1oN WAS RAISED DURING THE TILDEN
.,.,,rsr,cATIoN AND NOT FINALLY SET
rEp-A SHAM INQUIRY SUSPECTED.
my TELEGRAPH TO THE TRrBUNE.l
.,Aanv Ian 24--There is suspicion in the
20 If certain members of the Legislature
-, Governor Blacks Canal Investigating Com
NC M hill is unconstitutional. They make the
t., that the Legislature under the Constitu-
- cannot delegate It's authority to make an
",,ca,ion on purely legislative matter like
- canal Department to some other body. An
.,rv of that character has for its matn pur-
"'' subseouent legislation 1t is maintained
an outside body. like a Canal Committee,
-, not do the work of Legislature in this
80, and further that the members of a COM
NO. CHARGED with such duty could not sum-
~" illnesses and force them to dvulge the
-.,s NJ their business II. for instance, they
ooral contractors, they might decline to
.raer their books or 10 testify about their
contracts ,,,.o ,,oo,,
- in recent years. and there is a good deal
- ..e,,icism nowadays to the honest intent
...osures Of any importance. A remarkable
,,rls of this fact is furnished by the Lexow
Trust law II was avowedy a bill drawn
.,,, a shirt Of bitter enmity against trusts.
-, u plat appeared at Albany. and amend
ITS were made TO it, Still 1t was declared TO
:. q, antitrust law of a most ferocious nature.
covernor Black signed 1t. No sooner. however,
..os the new enactment brought before Alden
cAss,sr. a Republican Justice of the Supreme
cur, than he declared II to be unconstitu-
,oraI and he spoke of 1t with such severity
,ho, one might infer that its unconstitutionality
ought 10 have been apparent to its author.
-, Canal Committee bill Of doubtful constitu
,ionslty. or one which would lead instantly to
= contest IN the courts as to the legal right to
compel witnesses TO give testimony and ex'
,,bt their books surely ought not to be passed
7, is true that the Canal Commission of 1919,
which investigated the Canal Ring frauds point
Cd ont by Governor Tilden. was appointed by
O concurrent resolution of the Legislature and
Was afterward recognized by a legislative Dill
concentrating money for its support. but 1t is
also true that its authority TO examine Wit
nesses was challenged. and that II did not es-
,abllsh its right TO compel witnesses to give
testimony.
Henry D. Denison a leading canal contractor
On July H. 1870 declined to give testimony or
N exhibit his books. The members or the
Canal Commission-John Bigelow' Daniel Ma
gone Alexander f. orr and John ID. van bu-
rn ir-at once committed Mr. Denison for
contempt William c. Ruger. afterward Chief
Judge Of the Court Of Appeals. and Frank HIS
cock later United States Senator, were Mr.
ne,ison.s counsel They appeared before Judge
Learned. Of Albany. and asked for a writ OF
haheas corpus Mr. Ruger and Mr.. HiscocR
argued that the right to punish for contempt
was limited TO courts of justice and legislative
assemblies.
# could not be claimed that the Commission
was in any sense legislative body or that II
euioyed any Of the powers of such bodies by
d.l.cation. Judge Learned Immediately re-
l.ased Denison He held that. conceding that
the Canal Commission had power TO compel
the attendance Of witnesses and might compel
such attendance. It could not force them TO an
s.er wher attending or to produce such BOOKS
and papers as were desired.
rhe Canal Commission at once carried the
case to the General Term Of the Supreme Court,
ana won. Judges James and BOardnan uphold
ing the constitutionality Of the Canal Commits
sion act But Samuel Hand. counsel FOR the
Commission cautious lawyer. He dld
not care 10 test the constitutionality OF the law
before the Court of Appeals. He accordingly
made a stipulation with DensOn's lawyers That
the contempt charge should not be pressed Inc
C.fu---of-AppealS. therefore. declared that the
case II appeared before its members. was not
"a practical question" and did not give its
views on the authority OF the Legislature TO
delegate its powers to make such an inVestiga-
lion as that which is demanded when canal
contracts are under consideration.
->-