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


The case OF Anderson VS.. Dunn seems
.o have been followed as an authority t,i-
on the celebrated Knbouru case came hc-
fore the supreme court OF the United
states. Cor gress undertook TO lnvestig ito
aort7ir r9ttrre cor~ecfcd with the JAY
Cooke failure and panic Knbourn was p, o
duccd as a witness and declined 10 ans
wer certain questions propounded to him.
re was taken before lhe bar OF the house
adiudged guilty OF a contempt and or
dered imprisoned. After his releasn he
brought suit against the Sergeant at
arms Of the house The defendant plead
ed justification under the commitment
from the house and Judgment was rem
1ered for the defendant Kilhourn appeal
ed and the case IL reported Kilhourn -.
Thompson. lO2. 4. s. 1863. Mr. Justice All
'er delivered the opinion for the court
ord 70 was therein held tnat the reasoning
IN the case Of Anderson vs.. Dunn was
rot sourd and II was overruled and re-
'ected The court further held that neith-
or house Of congress was constituted a
part OF any court OF general jurisdiction,
nor has IL any history 70 which the ex-
arcise Of such power can be trSced. That
'ts power must he sought alone In 'Om q
express grant IN the constitution. or bo
found necessary 10 carry into effect such
n0wors as are granted II was also held
that by the constitution oarh house of
congress has certain functions 10 perform
which are IN their nature iu iiciai az de-
ferminlre the qualifications tad ele,,ti Jns
~ its members. impeachment Of officers,
expulsion Of members, and otAc- powers
expressly granted in the exercise OF
which witnesses may be suhpoenaed. teA-
tlmony taken ard witnesses punished
-or oontempt: hut it II expressly held
= ~ congress has no such nowers unless
7Vrresslv granted or necessarily Incident
90 such express grant
In this case % ls aiso said by Justice
'rt'nr that mo cotorfai Legislatures di1
not possess the powers 10 punish for con-
-or0ufs. a. did the house %. parliament.
ord thar the court Of Privv Connel had
Neld that 81 was not a right given nv the
Common law. and was not a general pow
or Of legislative hodles
n Justice Miller is correct IN his views
ieduced from the English authorities
hat the power 70 punish for contempts
ty legislative bodies is no part Of the
Cammon law. but has a power peculia-
the Houses n Parliament by reason
| their judicial functions. Then some OF
''r state courts have fallen into error
~ notably the Court of Appeals Of Mis-
-0rri ir hof'rF that such power Is de-
'ved from me Common law. The colon.
~ LEGISLATURES hear similar reiat or e
90 RrifiFh government that our terrific.
~ government does 20 The fehsrsl gov
| -rrrert. and N these legislative h0i.e'
| 10 not possess the powers n punish foi
| .7rtenut hv virtue Of auv inherent powol
| r ns derived fr0m common OF parliament
~ law. then suely We 20 not get from
he common law that w';iel tho coma.or
aw never recognized.
! IN the Chapman case. 80 =. 8 Grl. thcr,
g nothing In conflict with tho ruling ir
20 KNhourn Ease. Chapnti was indlct
= IN the supreme court 0f the Dis'ric
| Columbia for refusing "a answer uies
tors before a special cofam.-'es nf IN,
'ouse Of represent ui /es appointed % IN
estgate charges II mn ''pa conduct q
ONE Of its memhs-s To- applied = H..
nnreme court Of ~ United States for
rlt of hsheas corps. Tho court aeid ihl
'atue valid whis1 mada f. a criminal q
erse 10 refuse ~ testify befars a com
aittee q congssis. whan acting ~'thii
The scope OF It's ooTsrs. The power 0