Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-02-12
QUESTION or STATES RIGHTS.

The summoning Of members Of the
supreme court of Montana to testify in
the senatorial case suggests a fine legal
question as to the power of the COM
mittee to interfere with the judicial and
administrative functions of a state. If
a senate COMMITTEES be delegated with
authority to deprive a sovereign state
of it's government and its courts, 1t
would seem that the rights OF a COM
monwealth are more largely subordi-
mated to the federal power than be-
levers in states rights" w hereto
fore been willing to admit. II the power
exercised by the committee in the Clark
case is in lire with established prece-
dents, or, if it establishes a new prece-
dent which hereafter is to Ae observed,
it must be admitted that a state gov
is at all times subject to prac-
tical suspension at the option Of a con-
gressional committee which may desire
to interview all the officials Of a COM
monwealth on som question in issue.
The fact that the power exercised by
the committee on privileges and cleo
tions has not been disputed in the pres
ent case does not lessen the interest
which the question raises in the public
mind. Without awaiting any afiirma-
tive action on the part of the committee,
the entire executive branch of the state
government of Montana, with the soli-
tary exception of the president pro tenn
of the senate, hustled itself off to Wash
ington. via New York, as soon as the
Clark investigation had gotten under
good Roadway. The depriving Of this
state of it's executive officers was volun
tary on the part of the officers them
state per orders of the senate COM
mittee.
But now two-thirds of the supreme
court have surrendered to the demands
of hat committee and left. the bench
for the time being to serve as witnesses
in the Clark case. While the judges
protested against being called away
from their judicial duties, no steps We're
taken in a legal way to combat the au-
thority exercised by Chairman Chandlel
in demanding their presence, hence
Montana is in no position to ~criticise thu
extraordinary course pursued by tht
committee in this matter. Had the SUI,
prene court not been in session, and tn,
absence of the judges interfered in NJ
sense with the administration Of justice
at home, the principle involved would
have been the same. If the authority O
the senate committee remains undis
puted, it follows that the judges, and
for that matter, any other man con
nected in any way with the state gov
eminent, can be summoned to Wash
ington at the option of it's chairman
without regard to the local interests O
Montana which might require thei
presence at home.
To the ordinary observer it would seen
that the purposes of a senatorial com
mittee might have been as well con
served through the dispositions of stat
officers as by their personal presence il
the witness box at Washington. Mem
bers of the supreme court of a state, a
least, are entitled to the presumptio
that they are honorable men whose depo
sitions would be as pregnant with effec
in the dispensation of truth in any cas-
in issue as would their verbal testimon
before the committee.
However, Messrs. Hunt and Pigot
associate justices of the supreme cour
did not care to take issue with Chairma
Chandler of the senate committee, pre-
ferring to yield to the subpoenas issue,
and nave their names enrolled upon til
roster of witnesses in the celebrate
case. While they protested against tn
action of the committee. they did M
deem it proper to take issue with i
chairman to the extent of raising an
legal question concerning the scope
his authority. Therefore, the questio
suggested as to the extent of authorit
which a congressional committee ma
exercise over the government of a sovel
eign state remains unsettled. It is Pc