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


les Of auditor, 90 az to make en operative
and efectuate the purpose AMI intent,
RESOLUTION IS PROPER.
SO far as is now apparent The court,
tho resolution under whic1 the commit
tees were acting was a psoper one, and
had for its object the acqi,i1J of inior-
nation proper 10 the legislative assembly
10 be In possession T. The auditor was
required by the process isIie3 snd served
on him to submit The papers cp' ;d Tor to
the committee. and when co requh ed, IT
was his duty 20 have comphei with the
request As a matter # pro .ecunn t.
public property. az a matter n s5nren-
fence TO public officers. as means OF
oxpedting public business, and as mat
ter OF safety TO valuable public records,
Il might have been the better part %
wisdom for the committee to have exam
ined these papers at the office and "a tho
places where they were filed and Kept.
But this was a matter OF choice for the
committee, and not with the auditor
They had the right TO require thels pro-
duction before the committee. Th9y s:ood
upon their rights. and II was the duty OF
the auditor under the statutes regulat-
Ing his duties, to have complied
UNsoUND PROPOSITION
Under the statutes and law regulating
the conduct Of this committee. II had the
authority to take testimony, to examine
documents, to subpoena witnesses, and
make reports to their respective houses
il has been suggested that the power to
subpoena witnesses and take testimony
necessarily embraces the power as an
incident thereto. and az a protection CT
lts rights. to enforce the attendance OF
witnesses and punish for contempt This
proposition Is unsound. This power bo-
longs to courts and bodies exercising H.
diclal Functions. but It is not a general
power. As proof Of the latter statement
] ner6 orlv 20 refer 10 the cases W lrre
In referees, masters in chancery Court
Commissioners. Notaries Public. Rafer-
ees IN Bankruptcy, Legislative Commit
tees. Boards OF County Commissioners.
and other similar bodies and officers, all
of whom may issue process for witnesses
hear testimony. and determine certain
facts; but none Of whom in this territory
have the power to compel the attendance
Of witnesses OF punish for failure to at
tend and testify.
@@%@ a - ~ - - 80 A ANfsN
This brings us to the pivotal question
in this case; the one upon which much
has been written and said, ana yet one
which IT, 50 far az ] am able to It T
mine after an examination OF all the
books, at my command, absolutely Nth.
OUT precedent. Has the legislature Of this
territory the power 10 punish for en-
tempts? II 1t has then upon the cords
and facts in the case the petitioner must
be remanded to the custody OF the m ,eI
TO answer the judgment Of the legisl ,:ive
council II It has not, this power, then he
must be discharged.
Subordinate 10 the main question, II
must be determined whether OF not The
a-t OF determining the guilt Of one chary-
90 with contempt and assessing his pun
l,hment at imprisonment is an exa!ciso
of judicial power Upon this question.
think there can be no serious contt lvcrsy
The authorities are practically unan-
lmous to the effect that rendering
judgment against person for contempt
and prescribing punishment therefor Is
not only the exercise Of judicial power,
but Is to some extent the enforcement Of
cIimina, remedies.
The power % render judgm ant which
deprlycs a person OF his liberty must
-,su0posc the power 70 hear aad dctr-
in' u'' clt-Be upon which NJ w. ar
ralsu.d, az d tcr which he Is 10 Je tri"i
TA" rHrr t. hear and determine - an
judicial power and can only be exercised
by some person, body or tribunal clothed
with at least some judicial power. To try
case Of contempt and adrudge punish
ment is an exercise Of judicial power
In Re Huron 5S Kansas l52.
In Re Davis, 6s Kansas. $685.
In Re simms 81 Kansas. l.
The power 20 fine ard imprson for coa-
tempt Is essentially judicial power. aid
an attempt 70 confer IL upon a state
n"a.e Of tax commissioners who nave
nowor 10 toke testimony is a violation Of
the Constitution.
Langenberg vs Decker. l6 L. r. A JOS.
I have found but one authority In con-
0ict with this proposition. and that casa
held that the power TO punish a wi ness
for refusal 20 testify was an admlastra-
tive duty ard might be exercised by any
one authorized to hear evid = ce, While
this case co0t'np some very phllosc pH,eai
and logical rec soning. it Is unG supported
by the Courts or text writer's.
II the 1ruDr taken by the council had
been taRei by the legislative body Of
state. and the Constitution OF such state
1id not expressly or by implication with
hold from such body the power TO pnn-
'sh for contempts there would be fouai
ample authority 20 sustain the action of
Tho council. But, by reason OF the mark
"a distinction between the p wers OF a
etate legislature and that If a territorial
legislature, the adiu Heated cnses from
'he courts Of highest respect In several
states furnish US but little aid IN deter
mining this question
WHERE PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN.
In a state people are sovereign. An pow
er Is vested in and derived from tho peo-
pic. Through their constitutions they
delegate and distribute these powers. a
constitution is not grant Of power 70
tar as relates 10 the legislative depart
ment, but is limitation. Al power not
expressly delegated 10 some other branch
or department IS vested In the legislative
branch The legislature is the represon-
tauon Of the people. clothed with an
their sovereign power Of every character
which has not by the constitution been
lodged elsewhere The legislative, exc
cuuve, judicial. and administrative power
is Inherent In the people. and remains
In them unless delegated by their con-
stitutlon. II the constitution does not di-
vest them Of all judicial power, the res
idum Is In the legislative assembly. and
may in proper cases, be exercised by that
body Hence, it may well be said by the
State Courts that the state legislatures
have inherent mower 10 punish for con-