CONTEMPT OASES. 



COPwEA. 



act under his advice in answering questions, 

 but we are of opinion that he had no constitu- 

 tional or legal right to the aid of counsel on 

 such examination. The constitutional provis- 

 ion on that subject is that ' in any trial in any 

 court whatever the party accused shall be al- 

 lowed to appear and defend, in person and witli 

 counsel, as in civil actions.' This provision 

 has been very liberally construed, and held to 

 apply .to trials before any authority having juris- 

 diction to try. In the case of The People ex 

 rel. Nichols vs. the Mayor This court held that 

 a police commissioner, appearing before the 

 Mayor of the city of New York to show cause 

 why he should not be removed for cause pur- 

 suant to the statute, was entitled to be defend- 

 ed by counsel. But here the relator was not 

 on trial, nor was he a party, but he was a mere 

 witness called upon to testify in relation to 

 charges against another person, and there was 

 no trial pending against any one. As well 

 might a witness examined before a grand jury 

 conducting the investigation of a charge against 

 another person with a view to his indictment 

 claim the right to be attended by counsel and 

 answer under his advice. We do not think 

 that a mere witness has this right." 



In considering whether the investigation 

 was within the scope of legislative functions, 

 the Court said : 



"We are finally brought to the consideration of the 

 important and more doubtful question whether the in- 

 vestigation which the committee was conducting was 

 a legislative proceeding which the House was author- 

 ized to institute. This is a jurisdictional question, for 

 the statute applies only to such proceedings, and if the 

 House had any authority independently of the statute 

 that must depend upon the question whether the tes- 

 timony was sought for the purpose of aiding it in the 

 performance of any of its constitutional functions. An 

 investigation instituted for the mere sake of investi- 

 gating or for political purposes, not connected with 

 intended legislation or with any of the other matters 

 upon which the House could act, but merely intended 

 to subject a party or body investigated to public ani- 

 madversion, or to vindicate him or it from unjust 

 aspersions where the Legislature had no power to put 

 him or it on trial for the supposed offenses, and no 

 legislation was contemplated out the proceeding must 

 necessarily end with the investigation, would, not, 

 in our judgment, be a legislative proceeding or give 

 to either house jurisdiction to compel the attendance 

 of witnesses or punish them for refusing to attend. 

 Where public institutions under the control of the 

 {State are ordered to be investigated it is generally 

 with the view of some legislative action respecting 

 them, and the same may be said in respect to public 

 officers. In the present case the language of the reso- 

 lution was as follows : 



" Whereas grave charges of fraud and irregularities 

 have been made from time to time by the public press 

 and recently by the Union League Club of the city 

 of New York against Hubert 0. Thompson. Commis- 

 sioner of Public Works in the city of New York ; and 

 whereas these charges have, in the opinion of many 

 persons, never been satisfactorily explained or fairlv 

 refuted ; and whereas it is of vital importance to all 

 the tax-payers of the State that the heads of all public 

 departments should be beyond reproach ; therefore 

 belt 



" Resolved, That the standing Committee on the 

 Affairs of Cities of the Senate be and it hereby is di- 

 rected and empowered to investigate the Department 



of Public Works in the city of New York, with power 

 to send for persons and papers, and Haid committee is 

 Hereby authorized to employ a stenographer and suoh 

 counsel and accountants as it may deem necessary for 

 the thorough discharge of the duties hereby imposed. 

 Such committee to report the result of such investiga- 

 tion, and its recommendations concerning the same 

 to the Senate on or before the 15th day of April next.'* 

 If the resolution had shown upon its face that the 

 only purpose of the investigation was to satisfy the 

 tax-payers of the State as to the truth of the charges, 

 or to relieve the department from reproach, and no 

 further action was contemplated or could be had in 

 the matter by the Legislature, the case would fall 

 within the decision in Kilbourn vs. Thompson. But 

 such was not the case. The Department of Public 

 Works was created and its duties prescribed by a stat- 

 ute of the State, and if the system was so defective 

 as to admit of frauds or irregularities which could be 

 guarded against by further statutory regulations, it was 

 in the power of the Legislature to enact them. That 

 some action of this nature was in contemplation is in- 

 dicated by the provision in the resolution requiring 

 the committee to report the result of its investigation 

 and its recommendations concerning the same. The 

 Legislature had no power to remove the Commissioner 

 or any officer of the department, and the only action 

 the committee could recommend would be appropri- 

 ate legislation to prevent a recurrence of the frauds or 

 irregularities, if they were found to exist, and to be of 

 sucn a nature that they could be prevented or ren- 

 dered more difficult by legislation. We are bound to 

 presume that the action of the legislative body was 

 with a legitimate object, if it is capable of being so 

 construed, and we have no right to assume that the 

 contrary ^ was intended. The same principle which 

 renders^ it the duty of the courts to liold legislative 

 action illegal when it unduly encroaches upon the 



Erovince of the judiciary forbids interference by the 

 itter with the action of legislative bodies or the exer- 

 cise of their discretion in matters within the range of 

 their constitutional powers. 



In accordance with these views, the Court 

 reversed the opinion of the General Term be- 

 low, which held the commitment illegal and 

 unwarranted. But McDonald was not ordered 

 to prison again, or to make further answer, for 

 the reason that the term of his imprisonment 

 had ended with the session of the Legislature. 



CONWAY, HIJGH. See FARGUS, FREDERICK J. 



COREA, a kingdom in eastern Asia, lying be- 

 tween Russia and the Eastern Sea, and between 

 Japan and China. It was known to the Arabs, 

 who traded and settled there in the ninth cent- 

 ury, calling it Sila, after Sin-lo, the chief of 

 the three peninsular states. The natives call 

 their country Cho-sen (morning calm), the full 

 name being Tai (great), or Ta (all, entire) Cho- 

 sen. The names borne by the Coreans indi- 

 cate the epochs of their history. They are, old 

 Cho-sen (B. o. 1122-A. D. 9), San-han, or the 

 Three Kingdoms (A. D. 9-960\ Korai (domain 

 of Ko), whence our " Corea" (960-1392), and 

 modern Cho-sen, founded in 1392. The ances- 

 tor of Confucius, Ki-tse, on the fall of the Shang 

 dynasty in China in 1122 B. o., emigrated to 

 the northeast and founded Cho-sen, a king- 

 dom which lay partly within the peninsula. 

 The Coreans reverence him as their first an- 

 cestor. Near the Christian era, this Cho-sen 

 was annexed to China. Within the peninsula, 

 the independent tribes developed into three 

 kingdoms which, becoming vassals of China, 



