The Chapman Case

In 1893-4 theUaited States sonate in7cstigated the charges that certain members of it3 body had sed their early knowledge of tho provisions of the Wilson tariff iu regard to sugar duties to speculate heavily in sugar stocks, thaa taking unfair advaiitage of their official infonnation. The senate summoned witnesses in the tase. Severa] refnsed to give testimony. Among them was Elverton E. Cbapman, the broker through whom the sugar parchases were cbarged to have been made. The matter was taken iuto the courts of the District of Columbia. Chajiman was seutenced by the supremo court of the District to spend 30 days iu jail and pay a fine of $100 for the offense of contempt of court. Chapman appealed from the decisión on the ground tbat the senate investigating corumittee had uo right to make him answer questions concerning the private business of his customers. The case was appealed to the United States suprerne court. Chief Justice Fuller and his associates affirmed the lower court's decisión. They hold that the senate's constitutional right of investigation into the conduct of its rn,embers carries with it the constitutional right to sumtnon witnesses and force them to answer questions connected with the honor and dignity of menibers of the senate. So that Mr. Elvertcm will now have to pay his $100 fine and lie in prison 30 days for cherishing a ruistaken notiou of his custoniers' privileges when said cusfcomers were (Jnited States senators. Chief JusticeFuller said inrenderiDg his decisión: The subject matter as affecting the senate was wlthln the jurisdiction of the senate. Tile questions were not imrusions into the aflairs of the citizens. They do not soek to ascert'ain any faets as to the conduct, methods, extent or details of the flrm in question, but only whether that fino confessedly engaged in buying and selling síocks, nnd as to the particular stock named, whether it vas employed by any senator to bftf or sell for hira any of that stock whose market price might be affected by the senate's aetion. We cannot regard these ques' tions as amonnting to an unreasonable search into tho pri-ate affaii"ït of the witness simply i ■ he may have been in sonie degree connected with the alleged transactions, and, aa ínveatigatlona of this sort are within the power of the two houses, they eannot be defeated on purely sentimental grounds.