New-York tribune., 1911-11-30
bomb SCATTERS DINERS BARNES WINS ON APPEAL
Need Not Produce Books, Ap-
peIIate Court Rules.
HIGHEST COURT GETS CASE
Albany Investigating Committee
Wants Decision on Codes
Copstitutionality.

Albany. Nov. Civilian Rarnes jr''
chairman Of the Republican state Com
mittce. need not tell Tho senate commi''ee
which is investigating Albany city ana
county affairs what lie paid Cor hls stock
in the j. B. Lyon CompanJ, or pl'c''
the books Of "Thc Albany journal en-
rany. of which be IS ] resident according
20 a decision OF the Appellate d. ION ''
the Supreme Court, Third Department O.
day.
The court. I'm reversing the order Of
tice Joseph A. Kellogg Of Glens u.s.
which directed Mr.. Barnes to comply with
the demands Of the committee or he COM
mittcd 10 Jail holds that Section 'j5 Of the
Code Of civil Procedure. under which
the proceedings were brought. is unconsh-
tutional. The court was divided. four to
one.
Justice IIoughton. although agrcein7
with Presiding Justice Smith and justice
John NJ. Kellogg and ScweT that M.
Barnes should not 10 compelled 10 answer
the questions disagrces with tbsm - 10
the constitutionalitv Of the section of In"
code i'm question. Justice Belts writes Il
dissenting opinion. upholdine the order Of
Justice j. \. Kellogg directing Mr.. Barnes
tO anSWe.
James W. Osborne. counsel 10 the In
'estir ting committee. said tO-uigi' tu7t
i. would take an immediate appeal to th'
Cour OF Appeals. n the hope Of obtaining
a decision from court fore the on
ciai life OF tine .ounittee expires on Jauu-
AIRY 2. The opinion OF the majority deals
solely with TIE constitutionalty Of the
section under which the proceedings were
brought.
Justice HoughtOn contends that the
questions asked Mr.. Barnes are not per
tEent TO the Senate committees inquiry,
or that the necessity for his production
Of the books OF The Albany Journal
Company sufficiently appears lie says:
II could not aid the committee I'm fram-
ing It's report To the Legislature TO know
in what manner Mr.. Barnes acquired his
stock In the j. B. Lyon Company. IT there
was any dercliction on his part IN owning
stock in that corporation which personally
] fail TO appreciate. the fact that ne owned
large amount was sui1ciont Tor the pur-
poses ~ the committee. Whether he oD-
tanned il by purchase or gift, at high
price or AZ a low price, or with whom he
talked about purchasing, IS wholly imma-
terial so far as the Jurisdiction Of the com
mittee is concerned. Being the owner OF
fbinlHldllNfIh ldl &c tUtbuUA Nv - N'l
clusiyely presumed to be interested ia
the prosperity ard welfare Of the cor
pOratiOu.
! do not understand that It is claimed
that any public official has wronStully
given public business to the j. y. Lyon
Company at the direct solicitation Of Mr.
Barnes n such We're the facts, II Is the
official who IS thus derclict in his duty
and not the owner OF the stock.
Patcrnal legislation has not yet gone 10
tho extent OF prescribing how an individual
shall make investments or what ne shall
nav for them. or 10 prevent him from law
fully accepting a gift OF personal property
IL he 50 desires
Justice Belts in p dissenting opinion says.
The matter is important because the
Judiciary H. asked 10 hinder and prevent
fhc legislative inquiry. The lower court
on sufficient precedent. u seems 10 mo hGS.
applied 10 tho facts disclosed here. properly
held that the questions should be answered
and tho books produced