Evening star., 1924-03-30

divided between going to jail and
becoming sort of lega- hero. If he
. should go to Jail it would be whale
of big story for the newspapers
and the head writers would fairly
writhe in exotic and devilish glee as
they dashed off: Sinclair Smiles as
Jail Doors Cang" On the other hand,
should he stay out of jail his name
Will ffve forever in row upon row
of formida able-looking books of the
law under such enhancing captions
as ''U. S. ". Sinclair"
For Harry Sinclair has taken the
bull by the horns, and, according to
those who have followed his argu-
ments in declining to answer ques-
tions put up by his inquisitors. his case
will go far toward laying down a
definite rule for the guidance of fu
ture congressional committees of in
vestigation and the witnesses they
call. Presidents there are for Mr..
Sinclair, in refusing to answer and
for the committee in citing him for
contempt But the United States Su-
preme Court has never defined the
scope or powers of a congressional
investigating committee.
Cxses OF Kind in Past.
Far from attempting to forecast the
fate OF Harry Sinclair, this story will
relate, very briefly, the cases of some
men who did what Sinclair did and
endeavor to point out what happened
to them and why. 1t is a good and
sound practice to begin at the begin
ming, and the reader will now be
introduced to Mr.. Hal1ett Kilbourn,
who. being duly subpoenaed, appear
ed before a committee of the House
Of Representatives and refused to
answer certain questions.
This was in 1876 and the House
committee was investigating a So
called real estate pool in the District
of Columbia in which Jay Cooke &
Co., then in bankruptcy and a debtor
to the United States. was supposed to
have had a large and valuable inter
est Mr.. kilbourn refused to give the
committee information as to the
names of the members of the alleged
pool and their addresses or to pro-
duce maps and records which the COM
mfttee had called for. The committee
reported the matter to the House and
Kilbourn was arrested on the Speak
er's warrant on a charge of contempt.
Brought before the House the witness
again refused to answer questions
and he was ordered to be committed
to custody of the sergeant-at-arms of
the House and confined in a common
Jail in the District of Columbia. He
was released by a writ of habeas
corpus from the chief justice of the
District Supreme Court and he sued
the Sergeant-at-armS and the COM
mittee for false imprisonment The
opinion of the United States Supreme
Court was delivered by the late Justice
Miller, who argued that while each
house of Congress may punish it's own
members for disorderly conduct, COM
pei the attendance of absent members
and require witnesses to testify in in
yeStigaGons Of elections or impeach-
ment proceedings, it was equally
certain that no person can be pun
ished for contumacy as a witness be-
fore either House unless his testi-
mony is required in a matter into
which tho House has jurisdiction to
inquire, and we feel sure that neither
of those bodies possesses the general
power of making inquiries into the
private affairs of citizens"
Then it was pointed out that as the
matter of Jay Cooke & Co. was still
pending in the courts, Congress had
no right to interfere. In other words,
the subject under inquiry by the
House committee was one for the
courts to settle and was entirely
without the jurisdiction of Congress,
whose judicial powers are strictly
confined to governing the conduct of
its own members, passing on elections
and qualification of members and in
impeachment proceedings.
Mr.. Kilbourn, therefore, received
three rousing cheers from the public
at large and collected moneys in the
sum of $4,000 from the United States
for damages.
Misdemeanor Statute.
In 1857 Congress had passed an act
carried into the Revised Statutes as
sections 1o2 and 104, making it a
misdemeanor punishable by fine and
Imprisonment to refuse to answer
questions pertinent to the question
under inquiry by either house of Con-
gress or any committee. A witness
refusing to answer questions is re-
ported to the Speaker of the House
or the President of the Senate, who
ccrtifies the fact to the district attor-
ney for the District of Columbia, who
brings the matter before the grand
jury for its action.
This brings US to the introduction
of Mr.. Elverton R Chapman, New
York broker, who was called to tes-
tffy in a Senate investigation of
Newspaper charges that the sugar
trust had bribed and otherwise inf1u-
enced senators who were drawing up
new sugar tariff. Mr.. Chapman was
asked whether his firm had bought or
sold sugar stocks for any United
States senator. He refused to answer
and subsequently was indicted by the
grand jury for contempt. This case
had long and involved history in the
courts, and it was many, many
months after the battle in the courts
was ended and Mr.. Chapman had
served the sentence of a month in
jail
The first important opinion in this
case was delivered by the late Justice
Alvey for the District Court of APP
meals. whence the case had come on a
special appeal from the lower court
which had overruled demurrer to
the, Indictment. 1t was the first case