The Washington herald., 1914-12-05
Two Interesting Cases.

Decision day in the Supreme Court last Mon
day more than ordinarily notable because the
court handed down decisions in two very important
cases which, while holding decisions fast enough,
nevertheless did not bear all upon the real points
at issue. The cases were first what was known
as the Oklahoma Jim Crow" law case, and,
second that involving the alleged contumacy of
George G. Henry, a New York broker who refused
to testify before the Puo Investigating Committee
in the House of Representatives. The Jim Crow
law in Oklahoma is the statute of the State per-
mittng railroads to furnish sleeping dining and
chair car accommodations only to members of the
white The Henry case brought up, it
thought that the case brought up, the right of
Congress to compel the testimony of witnesses
before investigating committees.
The Supreme Court threw out both cases be-
cause OF technical considerations having reference
only to the form of the proceeding, and not invov
ing in any way the merits The legal petition to
the court in the Oklahoma case was declared to
be full of imperfections; but the court, while de-
claring that because of these mpcrfectons it could
not consider the petition, yet stated that if it was
permitted to go into the merits of the it would
have held the Jim Crow statute of Oklahoma un-
constitutional There is no doubt therefore, that
when this case, or the case of any similar Jim
Crow law against which the colored people of the
South complain is presented to the Supreme Court
in due and regular form, the court will wipe it
from the book of the State that has enacted
it Therefore, although this particular Oklahoma
case has fallen by the waysde, the bringing of the
case has not been altogether in vain The Supreme
Court has served warning upon the Southern leg
islatures that they have gone too far with their
Jim Crow laws.
In opinion the Henry case much the
more momentous of the two, and it is matter OF
sincere regret that in this the court did not
find some way of expressing its mind upon the
merits even if more less informally, as it did in
the Jim Crow 1t thought that the appeal
to the Supreme Court taken by Mr.. Henry laid
before the court in its broadest relation the ques
ton that has been wrangled and fought over in
Congress for years back, as to the extent that
either the Senate the House of Representatives
or Congress as body can go in inquiring into
private affairs for public purposes. This is some
thing that has fully and definitely settled in
all of national history; and at times there has
been great political and public commotion be-
cause of such uncertainty.
On the face of things there is no question in
volved at all, because the Federal statutes make
it misdemeanor for anyone to refuse to answer
question put to him by Congressional investi-
eating committee. But we also have such thing
as Federal Constitution. This Constitution, the
organic law of land, provides that citizen
shall be protected in his person and property
against unreasonable searches and seizures; and
the courts have uniformly shown disposition to
eonstrue with great strctness the right of search
and seizure when directed by committee of Con-
gress against individual
Probably the best known case of this kind on
record is the Hallett Kilbourn case Here COM
mittee of the House of Representatives investi
eating the alleged connection of certain members
of Congress with real estate ring in the District
Of Columbia A real estate agent, summoned to