Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-02-25
DECLARE CONSTITUTION
GIVES THEM IMMUNITY
Award of Contract Legislation, and
Not Renewable.
ADVERSE DECISION EXPECTED
Opinion Around City Hall Is That
Court Will Insist Upon Its Ju-
risdiction-Arguments Show
Close Questions Involved. .

Acknowledging the right of the District
Supreme Court to require them. as in
dividuals. to show cause why they should
not he compelled to correct an alleged
wrongful act, but pleading the privilege
that their actions as 4 committee of the
Congress are not subject TO review by
the judiciary. the House members Of the
joint committee on printing throuGh
counsel today appealed in court and at
tackled the jurisdiction of Justice Wright
TO issue a writ of mandamus to compel
consideration of the bid of the VALLEY
Paper Company of Holyokc. Mass, t.
furnish paper to the government
After An extended discussion of The
courts jurisdiction Justice Wright took
the matter under advisement. He All
nounced that his decision would BE-
handed down next Monday, at which
time, he said, the court would give II
detail the reasons actuating him in
reaching his conclusion.
Guess as to Decision.
From the questions propounded os
the court the general impression
around the city hall is that he will over
rule the contention Of the representatives
and will uphold his Jurisdiction.
While the House members were MOI
present in court, the room was crowded
to the doors with members of the bar
and interested spectators Controll.-
fTracewell seemed to pay close atten-
ton to the argument.
Attorney John w. Yerkes opened the ar
gument on the question of jurisdiction.
He praised the action of the House in di
tins re IN hAr IN
court, showing thereby its respect and re-
gard for the judiciary He claimed, how
ever, that the members in SO appearing
do not lessen their claim to the privileges
and immunities which belong to the posi-
tionS they hold as members of an inde-
! pendent, coordinate branch Of the gov
ernment.
Mr.. Yerkes insisted that the members
of the committee are legislators and that
their actions as members of a committee
of the House. responsible only to that
body, are legislative functions I'm the eN-
ercise OIL which they are independent Of
either of the other coordinate branches of
the government. He secuted the idea
that the members act in a dual capacit.
and declared they had all their power
from the Legislature TO which they be
longed and performed only functions
necessary to that body.
He pointed out the inability of the
court to enforce its order to compel the
members of the committee to consider
the bid of the Valley Paper Company If
the respondents should see ft 10 dis
regard it. He urged this condition OF
affairs as showing the purpose of the
Constitution to insure TO the members OF
Congress immunity from interference
from the courts.
In conclusion he declared that it was
| impossible to divest the members of theh
privileges by merely designating them to
serve on the committee on printing.
Encroaches on the Judiciary.
Attorney Fred B. Rhodes, in denying
the Immunity claimed BY the respondents
and sustaining the right of the court TO
summon the members of the committee
on printing. stated that ne agreed witt
Mr.. Yerkes that one co-ordinated branch
of the government should not encroacu
upon another coordinate brapch. but
suggested that when Congress attempts
to interpret a law il encrOachcs upon
the function of the judiciary He de
clared that Congress had control of
the powers of the committee on printing.
and In attempting to refute the conten
tion of Mr.. Yerkes that the Congress
exercises control through its power to
remove member of the committee and
substitute another. he suggested that il
could not be claimed that power of re-
moval amounted TO control
II SO, then he suggested President Taft
could be said to control the decisions Of
Controller Tracewell of the Treasury be-
cause he had the right TO remove the con-
troller.
Mr.. Rhodes urged that the committee
was appointed by an act of Congress and
it's duties regulated. He read what he
called a rule of the house. which recited
the legislative functions of the joint COM
mittee. "in addition to its executive pow
ers." He claimed this a refutation Of the
claim that the duties were always legis
lative.
A positive duty was imposed on the
committee. he contended, by the statute.
and if its members refused or neglected
to do it's duty the court was the place for
the citizen to seek redress. The question
of vested right must be left to the
courts to determine he urged.
Richard r. Mcmahon of West Virginia,
appearing specially for Mr.. Stur2iss. spoke
for the preservation of the rights and
privileges of the Congress. He declared
that no more control over the Senate
and House is lodged In the courts than
in the executive.
Always a Legislator.
He held that legislator is always q
legislator during the session of the Con-
gress. When he answers the roll call.
said Mr.. Mcmahon. he does a ministerial
thing, but he does it a legislator; when
he awards a contract for governmental
printing, he does an executive act, but
still as legislator.
He urged that the court should not IN
wade the right of the Congress and point
ed out how such a power might be abused.
Suppose, he said. that a person wanted
bill passed which the presence of one
member of the Congress jeopardiZed, what
more easy than that he proceed by man
damus to secure the absence OF the frac-
tious member when the vote on the Dill
was to be taken
Attorney George T. Hamilton, in clos
ing for the House members of the com
mittee urged that the work of the legis-
Iators would be seriously hampered il fhe
courts should attempt to interfere with the
Congress 1T the behest of every one who
thought his rights invaded. He pointed
out that the joint committee on printing
Is not "A separate and distinc: body from