Evening star., 1935-02-04
|MACCRACKEN JAIL
SENTENCE UPHELD
BY HIGH TRIBUNAL
Supreme Court Rules Con-
gress Has Power to
Punish.
CASE INVOLVED RIGHT
TO IMPOSE PENALTIES
Former U. S. Aviation Official
Had Failed to Heed Re.
quest for Data.
BY the Associated Press.

BY the Associated Press.
Marking another significant mile
stone in the development of juriSpru-
dence, the Supreme Court held today
that Congress-as we'll as the courts
has power to punish for contempt.
The decision affirmed a Today jail
sentence imposed by the Senate on
William p MacCracken. jr., former
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Aeronautics, for failure to produce
data requested by its Airmal Investi-
eating Committee.
MacCracken was found guilty after
testimony that he had permitted cli-
ents to withdraw some of the sub
poenaed records from his Office and
to destroy others.
The same sentence was imposed on
L. H. Brittin, former vice president of
Northwest Airways, Inc, but he served
it without appealing to the courts.
Sinclair Case Recalled.
In 1929. Harry F. Sinclair, wealthy
oil operator. was sentenced to 80 days
in Jail and fined $500 for refusing to
answer questions during the Senate's
famous Teapot Dome oil investigation.
The District of Columbia Supreme
Cortland not the Senate-impoSed
the sentence. however.
Attorney for the Western Air Ex-
press, the Pan-American Airways, the
Transcontinental & Western Air and
other corporations interested in air
mail contracts, MacCracken appeared
before the Senate committee. but de-
clined to produce the papers demand
ed, taking the position he must, as
counsel. respect the confidence exist
ing between him and his clients.
At the suggestion of the committee
he telegraphed numerous clients ask
ing authority to produce the docu-
mentS Harris NJ. Hanshue. preSi-
dent of Western Air Express. re-
piled he could not decide until he
had an opportunity to examine the
papers relating to his company
He sent Gilbert Given, his Wash
ington representative. to do that.
MacCracken permitted Given to ex-
anime the files and take from them
papers. some of which related to air.
mail contracts.
In the absence of MacCracken. one
of his partners permitted Brittin to
have access to the files. Brittin re-
moved six papers, which he tore into
bits and threw in his waste basket.
Senate Ordered Arrest.
The Senate ordered MacCracken's
arrest. Then began a game of hide
and seek, during which MacCracken
presented himself at Sergt. at Arms
Chesley W. Jurneys apartment, re-
naming overnight as an unlimited
guest and insisting that Jurney ar
rest him. Jurney refused. however,
for technical reasons
On February II. MacCracken was
arrested, and at once applied to the
District of Columbia Supreme Court
for release under a writ of habeas
corpus, challenging the authority of
the Senate to punish him for con-
tempt.
In opposing his release, counsel for
the Senate contended it was acting
in its constitutional legislative func-
tion, and had authority to try for
contempt and punish any one OBJ
structing those functions.
The court dismissed the petition
and MacCracken appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia.
There Frank Hogan, his counsel,
argued the only recourse open to the
Senate was to cite the circumstances
n tho TTr1ifnd ntt
that official to decide whether Mac
Cracken had committed an offense
and If so to bring the matter to the
attention of the grand jury for in
dictment.
He argued the Senate was without
power to sentence person for a past
contempt and held MacCracken had
purged himself of the charges by
seeing to it that the missing papers
he had were returned to the COM
mittee.
Opinion by Brandeis.
The appellate court decide three
to two for MacCracken.
The opinion was by Justice Bran
deiS and no dissent was announced.
Lie opinion SalQ Inc naln con-
tention of MacCracken is that the So
called power to punish for contempt
may never be exerted in the case of
a private citizen solely qua punish
ment
The argument is that the power
may be used by the legislative body
merely as a means of removing an ex-
isting obstruction to the performance
of its duties; that the power to punish
ceases as son as the obstruction has
been removed or its removal has be-
come impossible, and, hence, that there
is no power to punish a witness who,
having been requested to produce pa
pers, destroys them after service of
the subpoena"