The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-02-22

formation as to the records of his Of
fee; was always ready to afford every IA
cility 10 the committee in making any in
! vestlgations, but could not move his Of
fee or the books and records away from
the office. When before the bar Of the
council he did not refuse TO answer ques-
tons, but repeated that he was advised
by the attorney general that he must
keep his records where they belonged. He
/ had asked to be given a copy Of the
! charges made against him and granted
| time to make answer TO them This had
! been denied him by a vote Of the council
Against this testimony Councillors Bid
! olson and Ravens testified supporting the
contention of the committee that il had
demanded Of the auditor that he bring
! the records asked TO the committee room
and that his failure to do so was regu-
larry reported 70 the council and that
body had adjudged the auditor to be in
contempt and issued commitment there
for.
Mr.. Elkin began the argument for the
petitioner. He stated at the outset that
in his view of the case it had resolved
itself into the questions: First-Has the
legislature power through joint commit
tee to compel officers of the territory TO
appear before the committee bringing the
records. of their offices.
Second-Eas the legislature the power
to punish witnesses for contempt in fall
ing to obey its processes.
Third-And if it has this power, has it
properly proceeded in this instance to
exercise it according to law?
10 fy,Hra
CATION by a committeeman a trial of any
one under the jurisdiction of the legisIa-
ture. The committee was not a court
and could not be constituted such, as the
organic act clearly defined of what the
courts of the territory consisted, and
their jurisdiction. If the legislaal could
not create any court other than now ex-
listed, it could not constitute a court of
itself or any committee it might appoint.
He pointed out the difference between the
trial of witness summoned to testify in
a case where a member of the legislature
or an employee was being tried for an Of
Tense against the rules of the house and
a case of the one at bar, contending that
as this was a case entirely of jurisdiction;
that the offense was one which was pun
ishable only when committed by a person
under tn jurisdiction of some court; and
that in all its proceedings the legislature
was going entirely beyond its powers as
laid down by the organic act.
He supported his contention by numer-
Gus authorities. decisions of the supreme
court OF the United States and 70 Gus
state supreme courts.
Following the very exhaustive argument
of Elkins, Judge Green spoke for more
than two hours on behalf of the respond
ent. Green claimd that the question was
one Of jurisdiction, an inherent right of 1
legislative bodies, co-existent with their
own creation. The right to summon wit
nesses carried with it the right to compel
attendance and punish for contempt or
violation of its processes. 1t was not in I
the province Of the court to inquire into |
acts of this nature. Each body had |
power in itself to adjudge and punish Of |
tenders against its orders and DEGREES.
1t was a power incident to its own ex- |
istence. Green fortified his position with /
extensive quotations from decisions of /
supreme courts of various states. reading !
numerous decisions supporting his con- |
tention.
Judge Douglas followed Green, review
ing the whole matter from the standpoint |
of the legislative committees action. con-
suming the entire time until o'clock.
when he was stopped by Judge Burford.
who stated that he had heard sufficient
argument to enlighten the court on the
question before it, thus closing the de-
bate without the administration being
heard to close the argument. This was a
leo. ~,l,s-
ministration' which expected Attorney
General Cunningham to close the case in
review Of the question.
The action of the court is construed bv
court is fully advised, not needing fur
Their argument to convince it that Hon
kins' position is correct.