Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 11.pdf/254

 A Glance at Legislative Contempt. either conduct himself with levity, or main tain with impunity a studied silence, when invited into the august presence of a com mittee of Congress. The latest edition of the Revised Statutes of the United States has a concise paragraph that bears upon the subject. It is there enacted that a wilful default of appearance, or a refusal to answer a pertinent question, shall be treated as a misdemeanor, to which is attached the not altogether agreeable incident of fine and im prisonment in a common jail, for not less than a month, or more than twelve months (Sec. 102), I suppose without benefit of clergy. The speaker turns the matter over to the district attorney, for the grand jury to take in hand. Investigations, it is to be presumed, therefore, will go on as usual. "An investigation instituted for the mere sake of investigation, or for political pur poses not connected with intended legisla tion, or with any of the other matters upon which the house could act, but merely intended to subject a party or body investi gated to public animadversion, or to vindi cate 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, but the proceedings 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." This sound exposition of the law, ex tracted from an able opinion of Judge Rapallo, of the New York Court of Appeals,

229

conveys a timely hint to persons, who, when about to be questioned by committees, have good cause to suspect that the legislative thumb-screws are to be applied for party purposes only. A Mr. McDonald, it seems, was thought, in 1884, to be able to impart to a committee of the New York Senate, certain information regarding alleged delinquencies of the com missioner of public works of New York city. But Mr. McDonald did not respond with alacrity to certain questions propounded to him; and when the committee told Mr. McDonald that his counsel might withdraw, Mr. McDonald concluded that he would withdraw also. He did not care to stay. The Senate were of opinion, after consulta tion, that it would be well for Mr. McDonald to step over to the jail of Albany county, and tarry there till the legislature should have adjourned, unless discharged sooner by order of the Senate. Upon habeas corpus, the Court of Oyer and Terminer thought the Senate was right, and it dismissed the writ. On appeal, the Court in General Term thought the Senate was wrong, and dis missed Mr. McDonald. The Court of Ap peals thereupon said that the General Term was wrong, and reversed its judgment, af firming the Oyer and Terminer, except so, far as it remanded Mr. McDonald to jail, the session of the legislature meanwhile having ended. The case, which will be found reported in the 99th New York Reports, at page 463, is well worth reading by all who take an interest in the question— Do investigations investigate?