The Delta independent., 1924-04-11
CAN CONGRESS COMPEL
WITNESS TO TESTlFY7


Land Leases committee of the Sen
ate, has caused that committee to
declare Sinclair in contempt of the
committee and of the Senate. There
upon the Senate turned the matter
over to the district attorney of the
District of Columbia, where Sinclair
has been pronounced guilty of con-
tempt.
This question of the power of a
congressional committee to compel
a witness to answer any and all
questions, has caused much discus
sion.
The authority to summon witnesses
is found in Section 102 of the Revised
Statutes, which states in substance
that any witness who refuses to ans
wer any questions pertinent to the
question under inquiry, shall be deem
ed guilty of contempt and shall be
fined from 800 to $1,000, and i'm
prisoned 'in a common jail" from one
to twelve months.
Section 103 states that a witness
cannot refuse to answer on the
ground that it will disgrace him or
render him infamous
While many cases of this character
have arisen, it is stated that thus far,
the real question has never yet been
decided by any court of last resort.
Sinclair's counsel claims that a
committee Of Congress has no right to
compel a witness to give testimony,
that being an attribute OF courts of
Justice.
In Kilburn vs.. Thompson (U. S.
16S-1S9) the Supreme Court decided
that the right of the House of Repre-
sentatives to punish citizen for con-
tempt is not supported by precedent or
practice. Kilburn refused to furnish
papers, was arrested, committed to
jail, released On habeas corpus. He
sued for damages and recovered.
In Henry VS.. Henkel (235 U. S.
219) Henry was arrested for refusal to
furnish papers, released on habeas
corpus before the trial of the case.
The court decided Henry could not
be imprisoned. r
III DIlic ID Sitl 'oJ N. D. II.
$3.50 the court held that no legislative
committee had Jurisdiction.
Writers on constitutional law seem
to differ as to the power of con-
gressional committees to punish for
contempt.
In People VS.. Keeler (99 N. Y. Court
of Appeals) the court decided that a
congressional committee had the pow.
er to punish for contempt.
In the case Of Interstate Commerce
Commission VS.. Brinson 154 U. s. p.
447) the Supreme Court said: Neither
branch of legislative department still
less any merely administrative body.
established by Congress possesses, or
can be invested with. general pow.
er of making inquiry into the private
affairs of the citizen"
From the many cases cited by the
Senate committee 1t would appear
that the power was upheld or denied
according to the circumstances sur.
rounding each case.
In the Senate debate, Senator
Spencer said: MY mind is not yet
made up upon the question as to
the right of the Senate to require
a witness to answer questions af.
fecting his private papers or bust.
ness. My point is that It is not a
matter TO be lightly passed upon.
Fortunately 1t is now on its way to
what I hope will be final judicial
decision. 1t is a question Of real
doubt and Of great importance"
The Sinclair case bids fair to be
an important case, not only because
OF its bearing on the naval land in.
yestigation, but because OF the need
OF finally settling the right OF n com.
mittee OF Congress- to compel a pri-
yate citizen to testify concerning
his private business.
In the early stages OF the oil land
leases investigation, former Secre.
tary Fall refused to answer any
questions. II Sinclair can be fined
or imprisoned. 80 can Fall.
All Interested In public matters will
| await decision In the Sinclair case.
probably by the Supreme Court fin.
ally. 1t has an important bearing on
the private rights OF citizens.