Evening star., 1954-09-27

tllS UdSlS 1UI CcllSuIC. 11lS COuus
sci based this contention on
several cases cited as authority
for this proposition, being Ander-
son '. Dunn t6 Wheat. 204):
Jurney v. McCracken 1894 U. s.
1861: and q. s. v. Bryan 1889
u. S. 323). The argumentative
basis for this contention Is that
the power to censure is part of
the power of the Senate to punish
for contempt. and that any limi-
tations on the latter power must
necessarily limit the power to
cenSure, This contention is with
out foundation for at least two
reasons: ~ The power to CEN
sure is an independent power
and may be exercised by the
Senate for conduct totally un-
related to any act or acts which
may be contemptuous: and (2)
even assuming that the power to
censure is limited to the extent
of the power to punish for con-
tempt, the authorities cited do
not sustain the proposition ad-
vanced.
The case Of Anderson v. Dunn
t6 Wheat. 204 (1821) was an ac-
ton in trespass for an assault
and battery and false imprison-
ment against the sergeant at
arms of the House of Repre-
sentatives. The Supreme Court
held that the defendant sergeant
at arms had a proper and law
full defense by showing that he
acted under the orders Of the
Speaker and, had taken the
plaintiff into custody for a high
contempt of the dignity Of the
House. The only possible rele-
vancy of the opinion to the mat
ters now pending before the Sc
lect committee appears in the
opinion of Mr.. Justice johnson,
at page 231. that the duration
Of the Imprisonment for con-
tempt Of the House is limited
when the legislative body ceases
to exist on the moment Of its
adjournment, and the imprison-
ment must terminate with that
adjournment. It is clear that
this was dictum, applies to the
House and not to the Senate.
does not involve a case of CEN
sure to a member of the Sen
ate, and was the law only until
Congress by statute made con-
tempt Of either House a criminal
offenSe.
Case Of Lawyer Cited.
In the case of Jurney VS.. Mac
Cracken (294 U. S. 1876 C1935))
the defendant. lawyer, was
arrested by the Sergeant at Arms
of the Senate, pursuant to a
resolution of the Senate. for
contempt in failing to produce
land permitting the removal and
destruction of certain papers,
after they had been subpenaed
by the special Senate commit
tee investigating ocean and air.
mail contracts. The Supreme
Court affirmed the dismissal of
the defendants writ Of habeas
corpus holding that where the
offending act was Of a nature to
ebstruct the legislative process.
the fact that the obstruction
has since been removed or that
its removal has become impos-
sible is without significance;
that the enactment of Revised
Statute 102 did not impair the
right of Congress to punish for
contempt: and that whether a
recalcitrant witness has purged
himself of contempt is for Con-
gress to decide and cannot be
inquired into by a court by a
writ of habeas corpus. It is evil
dent that this case does not deal
with any question Of censure or
punishment of a Member of the
Senate. MacCracken did con-
tend that the Senate was abso-
lutely without power itself to i'm
pose punishment for a past act.
and that such punishment must
be inflicted by the courts, as for
other crimes, and under the safe
guard of all constitutional pro-
visions, but this contention was
dismissed by the opinion of the
Supreme Court, delivered by Mr..
Justice Brandeis, at page 149.
The case of United States "
Bryan 1899 u. s. 323 (1950)) in
volved a criminal trial for con-
tempt of the House Committee
on Un-American Activities, and
] the refusal of the defendant to
produce certain records under
subpoena from that committee.
In the opinion of the Supreme
Court, by Mr.. Chief Justice VIM
son, mention is made of Revised
Statutes, section 102 q U. S. c.,
sec. 1927, enacted in 1857. It is
clear that one Of the purposes OF
the act was to permit the i'm
priSonment Of a contemnor be-
yond the expiration of the cur
rent session Of Congress. The
Supreme Court states unequivo-
cally that the judicial proceed
ings under the statute are in
tended as an alternative method
Of vindicating the authority ot
Congress to compel the disclosure
of facts which are needed in the
fulflllment of the legislative
function. The select committee
was advised by its counsel that
this case has no apparent bear
ing upon the contention of Sena-
tor Mccarthy in these proceed
ings with reference to his failure
to appear before the Gillette.
Hennings subcommittee. Coun.
sci further advised that 1t is in
appropriate to cite cases oI
criminal contempt as the basi.
for the law of censure by the
Senate Of one Of its Members.
| Has Power to Censure.
| It seems clear that If a SEN