The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1899-02-24
BURFoRD's OPINION
In the Contempt Case Of Au-
ditOr HOpkIns-DecisiOn
in Full.

In the Contempt Case or Au-
ditOr HOpkIns-DecisiOn
in Full.
In the district court yesterday morning
Judge John H. Burford. rendered his
opinion In the S. n. Hopkins habeas cor
pus case Tie court room was crowded
with persons eager 10 learn the judges
decision Of the matter The opinion is one
Of great Importance and discusses the
case most thoroughly aud in which the
most important opinion OF other judges
and citations OF many cases bearing upon
the subject OF contempt are reviewed In
a mastery legal manner. This opinion is
held TO be, by the lawyers OF this city,
one which will no doubt mark the action
Of many other cases OF similar nature in
other states. The opinion Is published
herewith In full;
In re, s. n. Hopkins. petitioner, opplica-
tion for writ Of habeas corpus.
OPINION by CHIEF JUSTICE BUR
FORD.
1t appears from the records and evil
denee IN this case that the NTH legislative
assembly now in session passed a concur
rent resolution authorizing the appoint
ment Of q committee Of three members
from each house TO act as Joint commit
tee 10 investigate certain matters relA-
ing 10 the fiscal concerns Of said terri
tory and the conduct Of certain Offices.
That the Joint COMMITTEES met and orgs-
nized by electing one Of its members as
chairman and another. secretary Of the
committee. That the petitioner IL the
duly appointed qualified and acting Aud
itor OF said territory and has the custody
and control Of ell the books, vouchers.
files and records relating TO the expendi-
lures of the public funds OF said terri
tory, which are kept in mis- office at the
city Of Guthrie. That the legislative In
vestigatiou committee issued and caused
to be served upon the auditor a subpoena
duces tecum, commanding him 20 appear
before the committee and bring with him
certain vouchers and stubs Of warrants
relating to expenditures by the Adjutant
Generals department Of the territory.
The auditor appeared before the commit
tee and offered 10 testify fully and 70 aub-
init to the committee at hls ofhce all the
books, eeords, files and papers under his
control and furnish them every facility
at his command for investigating said &c.
counts. The committee declined his po-
position and directed him 20 produce the
documents ait the committee room. Tnis
the auditor declined to do,
QUESTION OF DIFFERENCE
The only question Of difference between
the auditor and the committee was
whether the examination should be made
at the office Of the auditor or at the
rooms OF the committee. The auditor
claimed that the papers were valuable
that hc was responsible for them, and
that II he took them from the office. they
were liable to become lost. destroyed or
mutilated. The committee then proposed
to let him retain them in his custody at
the committee room while they were be-
ing examined. Zach party declined 10
yield; each stood on their official dignity
and the result was that the committee
reported the matter Of the auditors re-
fusal to the council and that body de-
clared him in contempt and ordered his
Imprisonment In the county Jail OF 10
gan county until he should indicate 10
the council his willingness to produce ,he
| documents before the committee. Toe
auditor was taken in custody by the un-
der sheriff and detained until the writ
iFgued In tsis case when ne was admitted
= al pending the caring In this cause.
1uure was considerIr'e haste and .'r"g-
ular!ucs IN 'le mcrner Of the triul ana
{ ln .ctlon Of the pet tioner, bl- 11t 'Ich
as ia the jugdment Of the court would
render the judgment void.
FIRST QUESTION FOR INQUIRY.
The fret question presented for inquiry
Is whether the legislative assembly had
the right TO require him 20 take the books
and papers from his office. II has been
held by an nnbroken line OF adiudicatlons
th9t the legislative bodies whose duties
II is to make laws have the right 20 make
such Investigations of the fscal co1re~ns
and public affairs, concerning which they
are called upon to legislate, as WI en-
oho them 20 properly and lnteligcntv
iegisiate regarding such matters. Anu
In order 10 better perform these functions
they may appoint committees ami em-
power such committees 20 take testimony
subpoena witnesses. and make rep3r,s "a
may be directed by the authority appoint
ing them. The resolution un Ter which the
committee was acting when the auditor
was adjudgSd guilty OF contempt upon
its face appears TO relate to legislative
matters and to have tor it's object the
ehcitation Of Information proper for the
guidance Of the lawmakers In discha' ging
their duties 10 the pulic.
A COURTS RESUMPTION.
IL has been sald by one eminent iudst
that such committees orc often used ~
political, partisAa aui vindicative pur-
poses ana are not always conducive g.
good government; but a court cannot.
hook 10 the purposes CT motives bask 0f
resolution OF tqis character but must
look 10 its oontelCs an1 viii always pie
sumo that the lcgtsl awe body Is acImg
IN good faith, and that the purpose OF
an investigation is to obtain possession
of the information necessary 10 faith
ful and intelligent discharge OF an i'm
poratnt trust.
Was the auditor required. under the
law, 10 produce at the committee rooms
the papes demanded? II seems 10 me that
there 10 but one answer to the question
The office Of auditor is purely territorial
one, He deals only with territorial mat
ters. The office was created by the legis-
iatlve assembly. The legislature II re-
quired to make appropriations FOR the
salary, expenses. and maintenance Of said
ofhce The act creating the Office dedne1
the duties OK tho auditor and among 9th
er duties required OF him u is PROVIDED
In section 6sl2;