CONTEMPT OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. 



261 



of passengers carried during the year ending 

 Sept. 30 was 17,430,921. The total length of 

 the roads is 974 miles, of double tracks 174 

 miles, and of sidings 257 miles. 



Paupers. On this subject the Governor says : 

 "It seems clear that the 'contract system,' so 

 called, which prevails in a considerable number 

 of towns, furnishes constant opportunity and 

 temptation for great abuses, and that some 

 substitute for it ought, if possible, to be found. 

 I recommend careful investigation of this 

 whole matter, and the enactment of such legis- 

 lation as may be found necessary to prevent 

 all inhumanity in our treatment of the poor/' 



CONTEMPT OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. On 

 Oct. 6, 1885, the New York Court of Appeals, 

 the State court of last resort, rendered an opin- 

 ion of wide interest and importance, holding 

 that either branch of the Legislature has pow- 

 er to require a witness to testify before a legis- 

 lative investigating committee, and to punish 

 him for contempt if he refuses to testify. 

 Early in January, 1884, the Senate at Albany 

 adopted a resolution calling for the appoint- 

 ment of a special committee to investigate 

 charges that had been publicly made of frauds 

 and irregularities in the Department of Public 

 Works in the city of New York. Pursuant 

 to this authority, the committee proceeded to 

 New York and began the investigation. Among 

 other witnesses William McDonald was sum- 

 moned to appear and testify. After being ex- 

 amined at considerable length, he declined to 

 answer certain questions put to him by the 

 committee, on the ground that they were im- 

 proper and impertinent, in that they were in- 

 quiries into his private business apart from his 

 transactions with the Department of Public 

 Works. He subsequently refused to submit to 

 further examination unless he could be attended 

 by his counsel before the committee, and be 

 allowed to act on the advice of such counsel 

 in the matter of answering questions. The 

 committee denied his claimed right to appear 

 by counsel, and insisted that he must answer 

 the questions put to him. This the witness re- 

 fused to do. He was thereupon reported to 

 the Senate for contempt of its authority. He 

 was arraigned before the bar of the Senate, 

 when he answered that he was willing to ap- 

 pear before the committee and answer all 

 proper and material questions if allowed the 

 advice and assistance of counsel, but not other- 

 wise. The Senate now adjudged him guilty 

 of contempt and ordered his imprisonment in 

 the Albany County Jail until the adjournment 

 of the Legislature, unless sooner discharged by 

 order of the Senate. He was accordingly im- 

 prisoned. 



Soon afterward his case was brought before 

 Judge Westbrook, of the Supreme Court, in 

 habeas corpus proceedings. That judge ren- 

 dered an elaborate opinion, maintaining that 

 the Senate was not vested with the power 

 which it had exercised, but, in view of the fact 

 that there was no little judicial authority in 



support of the Senate's claim, he declined while 

 sitting as a single judge to. assume the respon- 

 sibility of ordering the discharge of the pris- 

 oner. An appeal was thereupon taken to the 

 General Term of the Supreme Court. That 

 tribunal held: 1. That the questions put to 

 the witness were immaterial, and that he was 

 not bound to answer them. 2. That the wit- 

 ness had a right to have the advice of counsel, 

 in an orderly manner, and that, when this was 

 refused, he was justified in withdrawing from 

 the committee. 3. That, except when engaged 

 in judicial functions authorized by the Consti- 

 tution, neither branch of the Legislature has 

 any power to punish for contempt for refusal 

 to answer questions. It accordingly ordered 

 the discharge of McDonald. The Court point- 

 ed out that the specific questions which the 

 witness was punished for refusing to answer 

 were the following : 



Do you keep books of this coal business ? 



Do you carry on your coal business any differently, 

 or upon any different system, from what you do your 

 business with the city ? 



How much coal do you keep at your dock ? 



How much business do you do in the way of coal ? 

 I mean all the time. 



Give me the name of somebody else besides Eobert 

 Gubbings that was breaking stone there for you. 



Who are they (from whom you get chips) except 

 the Tornpkins Cove people ? 



Concerning these inquiries Justice Learned, 

 in the opinion of the General Term, said : "As 

 to the questions respecting the business of the 

 witness, we cannot see the least pertinency to 

 the subject of investigation. There does not 

 appear to be anything connecting the coal 

 business with the alleged frauds and irregulari- 

 ties. The questions were impertinent, should 

 not have been asked, and need not have been 

 answered." 



The case was now carried to the Court of 

 Appeals. Here the power exercised by the 

 Senate was affirmed. The main question, the 

 Court explained, was as to the constitutionality 

 of the State statute in issue. This expressly 

 gives to each house " the power to punish as a 

 contempt, and by imprisonment, a breach of 

 its privileges or of the privileges of its mem- 

 bers " in certain enumerated cases, one of which 

 is " that of refusing to attend or be examined 

 as a witness either before the House or by a 

 committee to take testimony in legislative pro- 

 ceedings." In behalf of the prisoner it was 

 contended that the Legislature had no constitu- 

 tional power to pass the statute, and in sup- 

 port of this view the case of Kilbourn vs. 

 Thompson was cited, in which the United States 

 Supreme Court denied to Congress the power 

 to punish for contempt except in certain cases. 

 (For this opinion, see " Annual Cyclopaedia " 

 for 1882, page 698.) The Court of Appeals re- 

 marked that that case did not arise under any 

 act of Congress authorizing either house to 

 punish contumacious witnesses, for there was 

 no such act. The question was whether a gen- 

 eral power to punish contempts was inherent 



