The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-02-24

a
was over-ruied and rejected. The court (
further held that neither house OF con-
sress was constituted a part OF any court |
Of general Jurisdiction. nor has x any |
history 10 which the exercise Of such |
mower can be traced That its power /
must he sought alone IN some express |
/ grant in the constitution. or De found nee
essary 10 carry into effect such powers
as rae granted Il was also he'd -hst
bv the constitution each house OF congress
has certain function 70 perform which
are in their nature judicial, as ceterIi;-n-
| ing the qualification and election OF rs
| own members. impeachment OF Officers,
| emulsion OF members, and other powers
/ expressly granted in the eNerciSe OF
which witnesses may be su5Poenaed- 'es-
tluonv taken. and witnesses punished Tor
/ contempt: but Il = expressly he'd thaS
! congress has no such powers unless eS-
/ p-essly granted o. necessarily incident 70
such express grant
IN this case Ii s also said by Justice
Miller that the colonial legislatures an
not possess the power 20 punish for con
teuupts. as did the houses OF parliament.
and that the court OF privy council Aa1
held that il was not a right given BY he
common law and was not 4 general power
OF legislative bodies
III Justice Miller Is correct IN his Vi"Ws
/ deduced from the English authorities
that the power TO punish for contemPS rS
legislative bodies IS 20 part OF the com
mon law. but was power peculiar 10 tie
houses Of parliament by reason Of their
judicial functions, then some OF our state
courts have fallen into error, and notably
the court OF apreals Of Missouri in hold
ing that sucn power Is derived from the
common law. TIE colonial legislatures
bear a similar -@iation TO the British gov
eminent that our territorial government
does to the federal government and I
these legislative bodies do not possess me
power 10 punish for contempt by virtue
Of any inherent powers, or as derived
from common or parliamentary sa~. hen
surely we do not get from the common
law that which the common law never
recognized
IN the Chapman case. lsS l. S. @l.
there IS nothing IN conflict with the ruling
in the KiIbourn case. Chapman was IN
dicted in the supreme court of the Dis
trict OF Columbia for refu stag 70 answer
questions before a special COMMITTEES OF
. / the house of representatives appointed -
! I investigate charges OF improper conduct
OF some OF its members He applied 20
the supreme court OF the United states
for a writ Of habeas corpus Ths couT,
held the statute valid which male u a
criminal orrense 10 refuse 10 testify be
fore a committee OF congress when ac'inS
within the scope Of its powers. ne power
OF congress 10 punish FOR conternpts IVES
not in issue. and while Chief Justice Ful-
Ter said in the opinion IN this case: We
grant that congress could not diyest It
self or either OF its houses OF the essen
tial and inherent power 10 punish for con-
tempts,' he limited this power 20 cas- -
IN which the power OF either house prop
erIv extended We may we'll assume that
: he meant the cases enumerated in q c
constitution. and referred to oy Justice
Miller in the Kibourn case
"A review OF the authorities citel and
relied upon to sustain the power % the
legislative council to punish Tor contempt
: leads me to this conclusion: That the
weight OF authority IS 70 the effect taat
no such authority rests in a state Iegisia-
: ture unless it is expressly granted by The
constitution OF the state. or that the sta-e
=, in he legislature and the powe- % punish
: for contempt is one incident 10 the eNer-
else OF some judicial power.
The acts Of me British parliament IN
: punLs hing cOntempts were not By virtue OF
=. rs 4esfs.at.ve functions. ut by reason OF
the JUDICIAL power with which II Was
clothed. So when congress IS exercising
=. some judicial function 1t may punish FOR
contempts. but no such power has been
: exercised since the decision in the XII
!, nourn case. whe1 congress vac engaged
in purely legislative duties.
The author-izs cited barring on this
: question - far - have Uss7 able 10 re-
view the 4. are - follows.
IN the case OF Garfield Va Gresham
: ct al. de.id,d by supreme court % Texa'
and reported IN So. W. Pep. -. ;he cour
held the action OF the house OF represent
: s,ives in adudging Garfield guilty q
= contempt and sentencing him 20 Drisef
for forty-elght hours was n pursuance
Of an express power granted By the con
: stltution OF the stats
The case in a Wisconsin. al. cited b
counsel for respondent. involved the judg
ment OF a court IN a divorce proceeding
and no question OF legislative authority
was before the court. and the only refer
ence 70 such powers IS In a dissentin'
opinion By Justice Ryan. ard Is a mer
I, dic,um.
IN Neel vs. the State. Ark. 20. rss'
from By counsel for respondent. James J
Neel. an attorney. was cf-ed before n
circuit court 10 answer a charge OF con
tempt in charging the presiding judg
WIKI corruption. The only question bef0r
the court vac whether the matters coE
pla!ned OF constituted a contempt o
. ] court No question Of legislative p0ws
vac before the cour.. and none considered
- The reference TO the powers % legis "a
. lures 20 punish tor contempt = dictIr
and enlisted % 10 weight a. an sutaoriil
In the Fa,vey aad Kn5ourn cases.
= Wis. CD. FaIvey vas zd5uog-d guilty Z
contempt By the hoiLse o. rep-ase ntztivs
for refusal % answer questions pr1pounf
i 81 % BIN By q Joint iavesri eating con
-1it-ae. and sentenced 70 ta1Lsrsonmen
Fzsvey apP3ed % the . ~-sns court =
4, wit q habeas co1pGz. T-ae court ne.
= / that ne legislature We acting wtthi7 g
= constitutional powe-z- The constitution
!. Wisconsin contains this 2F3vls.on, sec-
= Art {:
!. 'Eaca house nay determine re rul'
= q IL oEn Drocsedlngz. p1u-sh f7r CIR
: tempt and dla5-de-iy beaavior- and ~
"a tas concu-re-ce C t1o-,h--5s q al -t
y, members elected. s1psl = member. o1- 9
: 'or TIE sane cause.