The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1899-02-24

congress 70 pdnlsh for contempta wa
not IN issue, and while chief justice Ful
Ter said In the opiniou Of this case. wv
grant that congress couid not dlccst II
self or either Of 'ts houses OF the essen
tial and inherent power 70 punish foi
contempts" he limited this power &C
eases 70 which the power OF either house
properly extended"
We may we'll assume that he meant Tho
cases enumerated In the constitution. aud
referred to by Justice Miller In the XII
bourn case.
JUDGE BuRFORD's CONCLUSION.
\ review of the authorities cited ana
relied upon 20 sustain tho power OF the
legislative council to punish FOR contempt
leads me 10 this conclusion. That tho
weight u authority is 90 the effect that
no such authority rests In a state Iesis-
laturo unless 90 is expressly granted iv
tho constitution Of the state. or that the
state constitution imposes some judicial
power I'm The legislature and the power
20 punish Tor contempt is one incident TO
the exercise Of some judicial power.
POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT
The acts OF the British parliament I'm
punching contcmpts were not by virtue
of It's legislative functions. but by rea-
son OF the judicial power with which Il
was clothed. SO when congress I'm exercis-
ing some judicial function. lt may punish
for contempts, but no such power has
been exercised since the decision Ia tho
kilbourn case. when congress was en-
gagged I'm purely legislative duties
The authorities cited bearing on this
question so far aa I have been able To re-
view them arc ms follows:
In the case Of Garfield VS. Gresham.
ct al. decided by supreme court of Texas
and reported in II So. W. Rep. 800. tho
court held the action Of the house of rop-
rcsentatives IN adiudging Garfield guilty
of contempt and sentencing him to prison
for forty-eght hours was in pursuance
Of an express power granted BY tho con-
stitutlon OF the state.
The case In a Wisconsin, AZ. cited nv
counsel for respondent involved the
Judgment Of a court IN a divorce proceed
ing. and no question Of legislative auth
ity was before the court, and the only
reference 70 such powers is in n dissent
ing opinion by Justice Ryan and la mere
tictum.
In Neel VS.. The state. Ark. .25q read
from by counsel for respondent, James
p Neel an attorney. was cited before
the Circuit Court to answer a charge Of
contempt with charging the presiding
contempt In charging the presiding
before the court was whether the matters
complained Of constituted a contempt OF
court. No question Of legislative power
was before the court. and none consid-
cred. The reference to the powers OF leg
tulo f.n oh -. l., .
tum and entitled 20 no weight as an ou-
thorlty
In the Falvey and Kllbourn cases. 2
Wis., $50. Falvey was adjudged guilty OF
contempt by the house OF representatives
FOR refusal to answer questions PROFOUND
ed to him by a Joint investigating com
mittee. and sentenced 10 imprisonment.
Falvcy applied 10 supreme court for
writ Of habeas corpus Tho court lei
that the legislature was acting within .ts
constitutional powers. Tho constitution
Of Wisconsin contains this provision gee
lion s. article g.
Each house NAV determine the rules
Of its own proceedings. punish for COZ
tempt and disorierly behavior. and with
tho concurrence OF two-thlrds Of all the
memhers elected. expe member. but no
member shall be expelled second time
FOR the same cause"
So it viii be observed that the rip1,t
ruuish FOR contempts was expressly
granted nv the constitution and the only
question for the courts to determine was
Whether the legislature was acting with
IN the scope Of It's constitutional powers
when II adjudged the petitioner guilty Of
contempt
The case OF Ex Parto Dalton. a ohio
81. ll2, is cited in support OF tho action
Of :he legislative council I'm this case
Dalton was n county cucrk and had In
his possession certain poll books A s'aoH-
ING committee on elections of the House !
with power 20 send for persons and pa
pors, was investigating the right To-
scot OF one OF it's members Dalton was
suhpoenaed 20 appcar and produce the
pol. books. lie refused because he had to
take them out Of his county The House
adiudgcd him guilty of contempt and
he applied for writ N habeas corpus.
The court In considering The case. con-
ceded the rule In Kibourn vs. Thompson.
l03, T. 8. lGs 20 be controlling and said
1.-THE constitution of!Ohio ordains cart.
2, section % that each house shall be
Judge OF the elections. returns ana quail
hcatlons OF its own members" The house
Of representatives was exercising through
its committee tho power thus conferred.
a the time Of the commitment Of the pc
titioner Tho power 70 enforce the at
tendance and testimony OF witnesses and
the production OF papers affecting the
election OF its members 81 indispensable
TO the efficient exercise OF power confer
red"
IL IS clearly evident that the constitu-
tlon OF Ohio clothes the legislature with
certain judicial powers. one OF which is
the right TO try and determine the cleo
tion and qualification OF It's own mem
bers. In exercising this constitutional
power, 81 has all ne powers and func-
tlOns OF court necessary TO a proper dis
charge OF its duties. ana in adiudging a
witness IN contempt and fixing his pun
ishment. II does such act by virtue Of its
judicial power and not by reason OF any
legislative authority.
Another case cited by counsel for the
responder, IL IeCrie ex rel. Mcdonald
vs. Reeler. Sheriff. 20 n. Y. 4e2. Mcdonald
was held by the sheriff BY virtue Of
commitment issued by the president and
clerk OF the senate. A committee OF the
senate was investigating a charge OF cor
rupti0n against the commissioner Of pub
lie works for the city Of New York, ana
Mcdonald had been called as n witness
and refused to give the information IN
quired about by the committee The sen
ate declared him guilty Of contempt The
court IN deciding the case said there was
no declaration contained IN the constlns-
tiOn OF the state comforting an the iudl-