Show IT IS NULL AND VOID p Justice Fields OpinionAgain the Commission STANFORD SCORES A POINT < A Lengthy and Intelligent Distorts Hon on the Bights of the Citizen They Wont Like It Justice Fields Opinion BAN FSANCISCO August 29Justice Field of the United States Supreme Court delivered his opinion this morning in the matter of the petition of the Pacific Railroad Commission to compel Senator Leland Stanford to answer an-swer certain questions respecting the Central Pacific Railway management and particularly to explain certain 4 vouchers of the railway company and whether any money represented in certain unexplained vouchers was used to influence national or state legislation legisla-tion The matter was argued betore Justice Field sitting with United States Circuit Judge Sawyer and United States District Judges Hoffman and Sabin last Monday The chief question raised was to determine the power of the railway commission to compel the witness in question to answer their queries The decision of Justice Field was as follows The motion for a peremptory order upon the witness to answer interrogatories inter-rogatories propounded by the railway rail-way commission has been fully argued and everything which could be said in its favor has been ably presented by the United States attorney either in oral or printed arguments In resisting the motion counsel of respondent have not confined themselves to a discussion of the propriety pro-priety and necessity of the interrogations interroga-tions and the sufficiency of the answers given by him but they have assailed the validity of the act creating the commission com-mission so far as it authorizes an examination ex-amination into the private affairs of the directors officers and employees of the Central Pacific Railway Company and confers the right to invoke THE POWER OV THE FEDERAL COURTS in aid of the general investigation directed di-rected Impressed with the gravity of the questions presented we have given to them all the consideration in our power The Pacific Railway commission created under act of Congress Con-gress of March 3 1887 is not a judicial < body it possesses no judicial powers It can determine no right to government govern-ment or of companies whose affairs it investigates Those rights will remain the subject of judicial inquiry and determination de-termination as fully as though the commission com-mission had never been created and in such inquiry its report to the President of its action will not be even admissible as evidence of any of the matters investigated in-vestigated It is merely a board of inquiry I in-quiry directed to obtain information upon certain matters and report the result of its investigations to the President It also is to lay the same before Congress In the progress of its investigations and in furtherance of them it is in terms authorized to invoke in-voke the aid of the courts of the United Stat s in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production produc-tion of oooks papers and documents and the act provides that the circuit or district court of the United States within jurisdiction of which contumacy or refusal of any person to obey the subpoena to him may issue an order requiring re-quiring such persons to appear before the commission and produce books I and papers and give evidence touching the matters in question Of THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZEN few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security and that involves not merely tho protection of his person from assault but the exemption exemp-tion of his private affairs books and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others Without the enjoyment of this right all other rights would lose half their value The law provides for the compulsory production in the progress pro-gress Qf > judicial proceedings or by direct iuit for that purpose of such documents as effect the interests of others also in certain cases for Jit the seizure of any criminating papers necessary for the prosecution prose-cution of offtnders against public pub-lic justice ani only in one of these ways can they be obtained and their contents made known against the will of the owners In a recent case Boyd vs United States 116 United States 616 the Supreme Court held that that provision of a law of Congress whch authorized tha court of the United States in revenue cases on the motion of the government attorney to require I the defendant or claimant to produce in court his private books invoices and papers or that the allegations of the A attorney respecting them should betaken be-taken as confessed was UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID as applied to suits for penalties or to I establish for fixture of parties goods Speaking by Mr Justice Bradley it said Any compulsory discovery by extortion extor-tion of a partys oath or compelling the production his private books and papers to convict him of a crime or to forfeit his property is contrary to the principles of free government It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman Eng-lishman it is also abhorrent to the instincts in-stincts of an American It may suit the purpose of despotic power but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty or personal freedom The language lan-guage thus used had reference it is true to the compulsory production of papers as the foundation of proceedings 4 proceed-ings but it is applicable in any such i production of private books and papers f of a party otherwise than in the course of judicial proceedings or a dirct suit for that purpose It Is I A FORCIBLE INTRUSION into and compulsory exposure of ones private affairs and papers without judicial judi-cial process or in the courseof judicial rcce ings which is contrary to the principles of free government and is abhorrent the instincts of Englishmen English-men and Americans In Kilbourn vs Thompson 113 United States 168 we have the decision deci-sion of the Supreme Court of the United States that neither House of 0mgress had power to make inquiries into the private affairs of a citizen that is to compel the exposure of such affair That case was this The fim of Jay Cook Co were debtors of the United States and it was alleged that they were interested in the railroad pool in the city of Washington Wash-ington and that the trustees of their estates and effects had made a settlement settle-ment of their interests with the associates associ-ates of the firm to the disadvantage and loss of numerous creditors including includ-ing the government of the United States The House of Representatives by resolution reso-lution reciting these facts authorized the speaker to appoint a committee of five to inquire into the matter and history his-tory of the said SEAL ESTATE POOL and the character of the settlement with the amount of property involved in-volved in which Jay Cook Co were interested and the amount paid or to be paid in said settlement with power to send for persons and papers and report to the House The com mission mis-sion was appointed and organized and proceeded to make the inquiry directed A subpoena was issued to one Kilbourn commanding him to appear before the commission to testify and be examined touching the matters to be inquired into and to bring with him certain designated de-signated recordspapers and maps reU ing to the inquiry Kilbourn appparec before the commission and was ask d to state the names of five members ot the real estate pool and where each resides re-sides and he refused to answer the questions or to produce the books which had been required The commission reported re-ported the matter to the House and it ordered the Speaker to issue a warrant directed 10 the sergeantatarms to arrest Kilbourn and bring him before the bar of the House to be punished for contempt On being brought before the House Kilbourn PERSISTED IN HIS REFUSAL to answer the question and to produce the books and papers required He was thereupon held to be in contempt and committed to the custody of the ser i geantatarms until he should signify his willingness to appear before the commission and answer the question and obey the subpoena duces tecum and itwas ordered that in the meantime mean-time the sergeantatarms should cause him to be confined in the common jail of the District of Columbia He was accordingly confined in that jail for fortyfive days when he wa3 released on habeas corpus by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia Upon his release he sued the Speaker of the House members mem-bers of the commission and Sergeant atArms for his forcible arrest and confinement Defendants pleaded the facts recited to which pleas the plaintiff plain-tiff demurred The demurrer was overruled over-ruled and judgment was affirmed as to all the defendants except the Sergeant atArms They being members of the House were held to be protected from prosecution for their action and as to Thompson the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings pro-ceedings In the Supreme Court the case RECEIVED GREAT CONS DERATION and it was held that the subject matter of investigation was judicial and not legislative and that there was no power in Congress or in either house on the allegation that the insolvent debtor of the United States was interested in a nriimfn HnQinoan narfnorahin tn invpsH u v u gate the affairs of that partnership and consequently by authority to compel the witness to testify on thp subject The House of Representatives said the Court has the sole right to impeach im-peach officers of the government and theSenate to try them were the question ques-tion of such an impeachment before either body Acting in its appropriate sphere on that subject we see no reason rea-son to doubt the right to compel the attendance of witnesses and their answer an-swer to proper questions in the same manner and by use of the same means that courts of justice can in like cases Whether the power of punishment in either house by fine or imprisonment goes beyond this or not we are sure that no person can be punished for contumacy as a witness before either house unless his testimony is required in a matter into which the house has JURISDICTION TO INQUIRE and we feel equally sure that neither of these bodies possesses the general power of making an inquiry into the private affairs of citizens And again if the investigation which the Commission was directed to make was judicial in its character and could only be properly and successfully made by the court of justice and if it related to the matter wherein relief or redress could be had only by judicial proceed irg we do not afte what has been said deem it necessary to discuss the proposition propo-sition that the power attempted to be exercised was one confided by the Constitution Con-stitution to the judicial and not legis atlve department of government We think it equally clear that the power asserted is judicial and not legislative and again The resolution adopted as the sequence of the preamble contains no hint of any intention of anal action of Congress on the subject In all the argument of the case no suggestion has been made of what the House of Representatives or Congress could have done in the way of remedying a wiong or securing the creditors of Jay Coot Co or even the United States Was it to simply a fruitless investigation into the per sonal affairs of individuals 1 If so the House of Representatives had no power or authority in the matter more than any other equal number of gentlemen ibtertsted for tho government of their I country By fruitless we mean that it could result in NO VALID LEGISLATION on the subject to which the inquiry referred I When the case went back to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia and was tried plaintiff recovered a verdict ver-dict of 100000 against the sergeantat arms This amount was subsequently reduced to 25000 which was paid by order of Congress This case will stand for all time as a bulwark against the invasion in-vasion of the rights of the citizen to protection in his private affairs against unlimited scrutiny of investigation by a congressional committee The Courts are open to the United States as they are to a private citizen and both can there secure by regular proceedings the ample PROTECTION OF ALL RIGHTS and interests which are entitled to protection pro-tection under the government of the written Constitution ana laws This act of Congress not only authorizes a searching investigation into the methods affairs and business of the Central Pacific Railway Company Com-pany but makes it the duty of the railway rail-way commission to inquire into to ascertain as-certain and report whether any of the directors officers or employees of that company have been or are now directly di-rectly or indirectly interested and to what amount or extent in any other railroad steamship telegraph express mining construction or any other business busi-ness or corporation and with which any agreements undertakings or leases have been made or entered into There are over 100 officers principal and minors of the Central Pacific Railway Company and nearly 5000 employees It is not unreasonable to suppose a large portion of these have some interest as stockholders or otherwise in some other company or corporation with which the railway company may have BIt agreement of some kind and it would be difficult to state the extent of which the explorations explora-tions of the commission into the private affairs of these persons may not go if the mandate of the act could be fully carried out but in accordance ac-cordance with the principles declared in the cae of Kilbourn vs Thompson and the equally important doctrines announced in Boyd vs the United States the commission is limited m its inauries into the intere t of these directors officers and employees in any other business company or corporation cor-poration to such matters as these persons per-sons may chose todisclose They cannot can-not be compelled to open their books and expose such other business to the inspection and examination of the commission com-mission They were not prohibited from engaging in any other lawful business busi-ness because of their interests and connection con-nection with the Central Pacific Railway Rail-way Company and that other business might as well be the construction anti management of other railroads as the planting of vines ot the raising of fruit in which some of these directors officers offi-cers and employers have been in fact engaged and they are to ENTITLED TO THE SAME PROTECTION and exemption from inquiry and investigation in-vestigation into such business as any other citizens engaged in like business With reference to the vouchers respecting re-specting which the principal interrogations interroga-tions are propounded and to which we are asked to compel an answer from the witness it is conceded by the commissioners com-missioners on this motion that the moneys covered by them were not charged against the United States in ascertaining the net earnings of the company If such were the case it isis I is-is difficult to see what interest the United States can have in the disposition of these moneys Be that as it may the general courts can not upon that concession I aid the commission in ascertaining how the moneys were expended Those courts cannot become the instrument of hVio nnm micoinn in fnrf Hornnc ita in vestigation The act r Congress cre atingjhe railroad commission in terms provides as alreadystated that it may invoke the aid of any circuit or district court to require the attendance of witnesses wit-nesses and the production of books papers and documents relating to tho subject of inquiry and it empowers the court in case of contumacy or re fusal of persons to obey subpcecai to them to issue orders requiring them to appear before the commissioners or either of them and produce the books and papers ordered and give evidence caching the matters in question and so punish disobedience to its orders and does not appear to leave any discretion in the matter with the court IT WOULD SEEM as though Congress intended that the court should make the orders sought upon the mere request of the commission without regard to tLf nature of the inquiry It is difficult to believe that it could have intended that the court should thus be a mere executor of the commissioners willand yet if the commissioner are not bound as they have asserted by any rules of evidence in their investigations and may receive hearing ex parte state I ments information 01 every cnaracter that may be brought to their attention and the court is to aid them in this manner of investigation there can be no room for the exercise of judgment as to the propriety of the questions asked and the court is left merely to direct that the pleasure of the commissioners com-missioners in the line f of their inquiries be carried out but if it was expected ex-pected that the courts when its aid is revoked should examine the subject of the inquiries to see their character so na to be able to determine the PROPRIETY AND PERTINENCE of the questions and the propriet and mcjssity of producing the books papers and documents asked forbefore the commission then it would be called upon to exercise advisory functions in ian i-an administrative or political proceeding proceed-ing or the exercise of judicial power If the former they cannot be invested iOI court if the latter the power I can only be exercised In the cases or the controversies enumerated in constitution or in thecase at habeas corpus The provisions of the act authorizing the court to aid in the investigation in-vestigation in the manner indicated must therefore be adjudged VoId I Federal courts under the Constitution Constitu-tion cannot be made aids to any investigation in-vestigation by a commission or committee com-mittee into the affairs of any one If rights are to be protected or wrongs redressed by any investigation must be conducted regular proceedings in the courts of justice in cases authorized by the Constitution The inability of the courts of the United States to exercise exer-cise power to any other than the regular judicial proceedings was decided in Haybourna case as early as 1792 2 Dan 409 The conclusion we have thus reached I disposes of the petition of railroad commissioners com-missioners and Tenders i unnecessary to consider whether the interrogatories propounded were proper in themselves them-selves or were sufficiently met by the answers given by Stanford Whether any of them were open to ob jeation for assumptiots they made or imputations they implied it is enough that the federal courts cannot be made instrumental to aid the commissioners in their investigations It also render it unnecessary to mace any comment upon the extraordinary position taken by them according to the statement of respondent to which we have referred that they did not regard themselves bound in their examination by the ordinary rules of evidence but would receive hearsay and ex pane statements surmises and information of every character that might be called to their attention and I cant be told that courts of the United States can be used in the furtherance of investiga tions in which all the rules of evidence may be thus disregarded The motion of the District Attorney for peremptory order upon witnesses to answers to i terrogl tories propounded as set forth in the petition of the commission com-mission is therefore denied Judge Sawyer read a concurring opinion very nearly as long as that cf Justice Field in which he declared as follows It is necessary to understand the exact legal relation of the Central Pacific Railway Company to the United States in order to correctly appreciate the constitutional powers of Congress and of the commission acting under it and authority over it The Central Pacific Railway Company is a private corporation created and existing under the laws of the state of California It derived none of its corporate facilities orfranchises frm the United States It is in no way subject to the control or laws of the United States |