Evening star., 1924-03-30
CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRIES
POWERS YET Underlined
Guidance for Future PrObers Nav Come
From Court Decisions i'm
Sinclair Case.


Is the section giving Congress the
power to hold a witness guilty of
misdemeanor. punishable by fine and
imprisonment, constitutional and
valid? (2) Was the inquiry in prog
ress within the jurisdiction of the
Senate? (3) Were the questions ask
ed Chapman pertinent to the inquiry?
Statute Held Valid.
Justice Alvey held that the statute
was valid because Congress is given
the right to make laws and carry
them into execution, and it is natural
executing these powers statute
should be enacted providing for the
discovery of evidence as the basis for
action, and prescribing a punishment
for those who contempt the authority
of Congress.
He held the inquiry was within the
jurisdiction of the Senate, because it
affected the Senate itself. and he con-
trasted the question under considera-
ton in the Kilbourn case with that
in the Chapman case. Answering the
third question in the affirmative, he
held that the questions were perth
nent because they involved the honor
and integrity of senators-that is, if
Mr.. Chapman had said no senator had
dealt in sugar stocks through his
firm all the senator's would have been
absolved, to a certain degree, from
suspicion, while, on the other hand,
if the witness had said that certain
senator's had dealt in sugar stocks
while the tariff bill was under con-
sideration this would have subjected
the senator's mot only to the ami
madversion of the public. but to CEN
sure, if not expulsion from the body
to which they belonged.
AS there could not be appeal to the
Supreme Court of the United States
from an interlocutory order, Chap
man applied to the Supreme Court
for the writ of habeas corpus upon
the ground that the statute was un-
constitutional and the trial court
without jurisdiction. The Supreme
Court denied the writ on the ground
that the application should be de-
ferred until after trial of the case in
the lower courts. The case then went
back to the District Supreme Court
and Chapman was tried and con-
victed. He then applied again to the
Court of Appeals, which affirmed the
conviction. A writ of error was al
lowed to carry the case to the Su-
preme Court, but was dismissed by
that court for want of appellate ju-
risdiction in such cases under the
then existing statute governing ap-
peals. Under the present judiciary
act such cases are appealable to the
United States Supreme Court, and If
Chapman's case came up today the
Supreme Court would take jurisdic-
ton on writ of error.
Bounded by Jurisdiction.
Chapman also applied for the writ
of certiorari to bring the case before
the Supreme Court, which was de-
MED. Then, as a last resort, Chap
man applied the second time to the
United States Supreme Court for the
writ of habeas corpus. In such
proceeding the court could consider
only the jurisdiction of the trial
court. which depended upon the con-
stitutionality of the statute.
The opinion of the court. denying
the writ. was delivered by the late
Chief Justice Fuller. He agreed with
Justice Alvey in holding that Con-
rress has power to punish witnesses
for refusing to testify, provided the
subject matter Of inquiry IS within
the Jurisdiction of Congress or either
house. He contended that the statute
must he construed as intended to ap-
nlv only in proper cases, and if so
construed was valid. That was as far
as the Supreme Court was required
to go in the habeas corpus case, but
as it also denied the application Tor
certiorari it may be inferred that the
Supreme Court found no error In the
ruling of the Court of Appeals that
the sugar. trust inquiry was within
the jurisdiction of the Senate and
the questions propounded to Chap
man relevant to the inquiry.
This brings us to still another wit
ness who refused to answer questions.
This was John r. SearleS, an Off
cial of the American Sugar Refining
Company, called as witness in the
same investigation. Mr.. Searles was
asked these questions: What amount
was expended by your company in the
campaign of 1922" What sum did
you contribute to the democratic
campaign fund in the state of New
York in 1892 that was used for the
purpose of conducting the campaign
land and Harrison were candidates
for President of the United States?"
Did you contribute to the demo-
cratic fund of New York;"
Questions Held Not Relevant.
The witness refused to answer, he
was indicted and the case was tried
in the District Supreme Court before
the late Justice Bradley, who, in
directing a verdict for the defendant,
wrote lengthy opinion. Now, the
validity of the statute empowering
Congress to summon and compel wit
nesses to testify had been upheld, as
had the fact that the inquiry was
within the jurisdiction of the COM
mittee.
Justice Bradley, then had to decide
whether the questions put to the wit
ness were pertinent Evidence show
ed that Mr.. Searles and other officers
of his company had testified to the
committee that the so-called sugar
trust"-as the American, Sugar Re-
fining Company was known-had not
to the national campaign
funds of either party, but had con-
trihuted to the state campaign funds