The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1925-01-08
To Test POWer

WaShlngton.-The constitutional au-
thority of congressional committees to
subpoena witnesses sand compel their
attendance, long disputed, reached the
Supreme Court in an appeal brought
by the government in an effort to set
aside an order issued by the Federal
district judge for southern Ohio re-
leasing Mally S. Daugherty president
Of the. Midland National Bank of
Washington Court House, Ohio, from
arrest upon order of the Senate.
The investigation of the department
of justice by special Senate commit
tee of which Senator Brookhart of
Iowa was chairman, and Senator
Wheeler of Montana was prosecutor,
had made inquiry into various stages
of the administration Of Attorney Gen
eral Daugherty when the brother of
that official was called to Washington
to appear as witness and bring with
him certain books of the bank of
which he was president. He refused,
and Senator's BrookhArt and Wheeler
were sent by the committee to Wash
ington Court House to examine him
there.
Trip Is Failure.
The trip was complete failure, and
upon their" return to Washington the
committee called the facts to the at
tention of the Senate, which passed a
resolution directing the sergeant-at-
arms to arrest the recalcitrant witness
and bring him before the Senate.
When arrested Daugherty sued out a
writ of habeas corpus, and was order
ed discharged from custody, the court
taking the view that the investigation
in which the committee had been en-
gagged and in which he had been called
as a witness was outside the juris-
diction of the Senate because it in
volved the exercise of judicial and not
legislative power.
When the case came up for hear
ing before the Supreme Court counE
sci for Daugherty challenged the pow
er of Congress through one of its COM
mittees to compel the attendance of a
witness except in impeachment pro-
ceedings contested elected cases, the
expulsion of members and in preserv-
ing its right to function. While COM
mittees in the framing Of legislation
could undoubtedly invite witnesses to
appear voluntarily and give informa-
ton, neither house of Congress could
compel attendance, Daugherty's coun-
sci commended. This must be true, he
insisted, because no power had been
wasted in Congress to issue warrents
and make arrests. Such power was
lodged exclusively in the judiciary, it
was argued, and the courts would not
compel witnesses to appear before Con-
gressional committees until clearly
shown that the investigation was with
in the power of Congress to conduct.
Question Rights.
The Senate committee was trying,
counsel for Daugherty asserted, to de-
termine the guilt of the attorney gen.
eral, and the investigation was aimed
to arraign him before the bar of pub
lie opinion, with the intention OF fore
ing his resignation. 1t was contended
that such an inquiry was beyond the
constitutional powers of Congress and
that the courts should not permit the
sanctity of the rights of the citizen to
be invaded under such circumstances.
Furthermore a county court in Ohio
having granted an injunction aimed to
protect Daugherty from further arrest
the Supreme Court should take no ac-
ton which would interfere with that
order.
The government replied that Con-
gress would be powerless to function
should the Supreme Court hold that
its committee could not compel the
production of information sought in
connection with the discharge of its
legislative duties. Former Attorney
General George w. Wickersham, APP
pearing as counsel for the govern
ment, emphasized that the resolution
directing Daugherty's arrest not only
stated upon its face that the infor-
nation which the committee was gath
ering was for legislative purposes, but
that it had not been adopted until af-
ter Harry M. Daugherty resigned as at
torney general. This disposed, he in
sisted, of the assertion that the inves-
tigation was solely for the purpose of
driving the attorney general out of Of
fee.
Daugherty Comes Back.
Daugherty's right of protection
AGAINST unlawful search and seizure