Plaintiff
Hallett Kilbourn
Defendant
John G. Thompson, Michael C. Kerr, John M. Glover, Jeptha D. New, Burwell P.Lewis, A. Herr Smith
Plaintiff's Claim
Kilbourn objected to the fact that he had been called before a committee of Congress, and, refusing to answer questions, had been jailed for contempt of Congress. He brought suit against Thompson, the sergeant-at-arms, as well as against the five members of the congressional committee that had called him.
Chief Lawyers for Plaintiff
Charles A. Eldredge, Enoch Totten, Noah L. Jeffries
Chief Defense Lawyers
Walter H. Smith, Frank H. Hurd
Justices for the Court
Salmon Portland Chase, Nathan Clifford, Stephen Johnson Field, John MarshallHarlan I, Ward Hunt, Stanley Matthews, Samuel Freeman Miller (writing for theCourt), Morrison Remick Waite, William Burnham Woods
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
28 February 1881
Decision
That Congress had exceeded its powers in subpoenaing and imprisoning Kilbourn, because the congressional investigation for which he had been called did not actually concern legislation; however, because of congressional immunity, only Thompson could be punished for the improper action.
Significance
This case was the first time the Supreme Court had reviewed a congressional investigation, and the decision constituted a significant limitation on congressional powers.
On 6 December 1875, a new House of Representatives convened with the Democratic Party in the majority after the 36th through the 43rd Congresses had beendominated by the Republican Party. The newly elected politicians were eager to take decisive action.
On 24 January 1876, the House moved into a new type of activity: investigation. The huge corporation of Jay Cooke & Co. had gone into bankruptcy, amidst rumors of corruption and financial scandal. Indeed, the bankruptcy was pending before the District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania. Cooke's company actually owed the U.S. government money. Moreover, a trustee of Cooke's estate had recently made a settlement that was alleged to be disadvantageous to Cooke's creditors--including the government. This the House proposed to investigate.
Although Congress had never before engaged in such activities, the House passed a resolution directing the Speaker to appoint a five-member committee, with the power to subpoena witnesses and related documents. The committee sent for Hallett Kilbourn.
An Uncooperative Witness
Kilbourn has the distinction of being the first uncooperative witness beforea congressional committee. Although he did obey the subpoena by appearing before Congress, he refused to produce the papers he was asked for, and he likewise refused to answer any questions put to him by Congress. Therefore, on 14March 1876, the Speaker of the House sent John S. Thompson, House Sergeant-at-Arms, to find Kilbourn and bring him into custody.
Kilbourn continued to refuse to cooperate, even to the extent of telling thecommittee the names and addresses of the five members of the real-estate pool. Since this was information that the committee surely already had, Kilbourn's refusal was more symbolic than an actual hindrance to the committee's work,but the committee was incensed at this affront to their authority. They decided to find Kilbourn in contempt, and he was taken by the sergeant-at-arms to"the common jail of the District of Columbia."
There Kilbourn languished for 45 days. Eventually, Kilbourn managed to entera writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia court found in Kilbourn's favor, and Kilbournpromptly sued the men who had caused him to be imprisoned: John S. Thompson plus the five members of the committee. The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court.
Preserving the Separation of Powers
One of the cornerstones of the American system is the notion of the separation of powers. The legislative branch is charged with making the laws; the executive branch is required to enforce the laws; and the judicial branch is expected to interpret the laws. If a person is believed to have broken a law, theproper place to investigate the matter and to determine a response is supposed to be in court.
This doctrine was further defined when the Supreme Court ruled in Kilbournv. Thompson, for the Court held that Congress had exceeded its powers byinvestigating Cooke & Co. in the first place. In an apparently unanimousopinion written by Justice Miller, the Court pointed out that British Parliamentary tradition--the foundation for the American system--holds no precedentfor the punishment of a private citizen for refusing to testify before a legislative body. True, the House had the power to punish its own members. The House also had the power to do a great deal that might be necessary to fulfillits legislative mission. However, Justice Miller wondered what could possibly be the legislative intent behind conducting this investigation.
Since the House had no authority to investigate the matter in the first place, the Court said, it certainly had no power to hold Kilbourn in contempt. Kilbourn's suit was upheld.
Congressional Immunity
However, the Court was not willing to go so far as to say that the members ofCongress who had improperly conducted their investigation should be punished. The Constitution holds that members of Congress "shall not be questioned inany other place" for any speech or debate that takes place in Congress. Theframers of the Constitution believed such a provision was necessary if members of Congress were to feel free to make laws that might sometimes be unpopular or controversial. Therefore, no one who had been elected to Congress couldbe punished for what happened to Kilbourn.
Thompson, however, was not a member of Congress, and he could be punished. The question of what his punishment should be was remanded to a lower court. Meanwhile, however, the Supreme Court had established an important principle: Congress had no right to investigate the affairs of a private citizen, nor topunish private citizens for refusing to answer questions in improper investigations. Although later Court decisions gave Congress somewhat more latitude to investigate and interrogate, Kilbourn v. Thompson was an important step in defining the scope of congressional powers.
Related Cases
Samuel R. Lowery, African American Lawyer
At the time that Kilbourn was argued, very few African Americans practiced law, Samuel Lowery was notable exception. Lowery (1832-1900) was raisedby his father and schooled (along with his father) in the ways of being a Christian pastor by the Reverend Talbot Fanning at Franklin College in Nashville, where his father worked as a farmer, livery stable operator and janitor. This education led him to his first position as a minister in 1848, but his good fortune was short-lived. As debates over slavery raged in the South, free African Americans were finding themselves the target of great hatred and violence. In 1856 Samuel had to leave his church as he and his father moved Northto find a better life for themselves. Although Samuel found himself in the pulpit once again by 1859, at the Harrison Street Christian Church in Cincinnati, Ohio, he longed to return to his southern home.
It was five years before the Union Army occupation of Nashville allowed for the African American community in the southern city to thrive again. When Lowery returned to his home town it was with a mission. He became a Christian Church missionary and worked to found the Tennessee Manual Labor University, making his father the president. Like the school that his father had worked forso many years before, their university taught agriculture, mechanical arts and Christian ethics. Unfortunately, the school fell under hard times when a fundraising venture ended in Samuel Lowrey's being excommunicated from the white Christian Church. Without their funding, the university was forced to close.
It was also during this time that Lowery had started to study and practice law. After moving to Huntsville, Alabama in 1875, and establishing another school (Lowery's Industrial Academy), his continued practice of the law earned him admittance to the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court on 2 February 1880. He wasthe first African American to receive this honor.
Sources
http://www.tnstate.edu/library/digital/lowery.htm
Hallett Kilbourn
Defendant
John G. Thompson, Michael C. Kerr, John M. Glover, Jeptha D. New, Burwell P.Lewis, A. Herr Smith
Plaintiff's Claim
Kilbourn objected to the fact that he had been called before a committee of Congress, and, refusing to answer questions, had been jailed for contempt of Congress. He brought suit against Thompson, the sergeant-at-arms, as well as against the five members of the congressional committee that had called him.
Chief Lawyers for Plaintiff
Charles A. Eldredge, Enoch Totten, Noah L. Jeffries
Chief Defense Lawyers
Walter H. Smith, Frank H. Hurd
Justices for the Court
Salmon Portland Chase, Nathan Clifford, Stephen Johnson Field, John MarshallHarlan I, Ward Hunt, Stanley Matthews, Samuel Freeman Miller (writing for theCourt), Morrison Remick Waite, William Burnham Woods
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
28 February 1881
Decision
That Congress had exceeded its powers in subpoenaing and imprisoning Kilbourn, because the congressional investigation for which he had been called did not actually concern legislation; however, because of congressional immunity, only Thompson could be punished for the improper action.
Significance
This case was the first time the Supreme Court had reviewed a congressional investigation, and the decision constituted a significant limitation on congressional powers.
On 6 December 1875, a new House of Representatives convened with the Democratic Party in the majority after the 36th through the 43rd Congresses had beendominated by the Republican Party. The newly elected politicians were eager to take decisive action.
On 24 January 1876, the House moved into a new type of activity: investigation. The huge corporation of Jay Cooke & Co. had gone into bankruptcy, amidst rumors of corruption and financial scandal. Indeed, the bankruptcy was pending before the District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania. Cooke's company actually owed the U.S. government money. Moreover, a trustee of Cooke's estate had recently made a settlement that was alleged to be disadvantageous to Cooke's creditors--including the government. This the House proposed to investigate.
Although Congress had never before engaged in such activities, the House passed a resolution directing the Speaker to appoint a five-member committee, with the power to subpoena witnesses and related documents. The committee sent for Hallett Kilbourn.
An Uncooperative Witness
Kilbourn has the distinction of being the first uncooperative witness beforea congressional committee. Although he did obey the subpoena by appearing before Congress, he refused to produce the papers he was asked for, and he likewise refused to answer any questions put to him by Congress. Therefore, on 14March 1876, the Speaker of the House sent John S. Thompson, House Sergeant-at-Arms, to find Kilbourn and bring him into custody.
Kilbourn continued to refuse to cooperate, even to the extent of telling thecommittee the names and addresses of the five members of the real-estate pool. Since this was information that the committee surely already had, Kilbourn's refusal was more symbolic than an actual hindrance to the committee's work,but the committee was incensed at this affront to their authority. They decided to find Kilbourn in contempt, and he was taken by the sergeant-at-arms to"the common jail of the District of Columbia."
There Kilbourn languished for 45 days. Eventually, Kilbourn managed to entera writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia court found in Kilbourn's favor, and Kilbournpromptly sued the men who had caused him to be imprisoned: John S. Thompson plus the five members of the committee. The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court.
Preserving the Separation of Powers
One of the cornerstones of the American system is the notion of the separation of powers. The legislative branch is charged with making the laws; the executive branch is required to enforce the laws; and the judicial branch is expected to interpret the laws. If a person is believed to have broken a law, theproper place to investigate the matter and to determine a response is supposed to be in court.
This doctrine was further defined when the Supreme Court ruled in Kilbournv. Thompson, for the Court held that Congress had exceeded its powers byinvestigating Cooke & Co. in the first place. In an apparently unanimousopinion written by Justice Miller, the Court pointed out that British Parliamentary tradition--the foundation for the American system--holds no precedentfor the punishment of a private citizen for refusing to testify before a legislative body. True, the House had the power to punish its own members. The House also had the power to do a great deal that might be necessary to fulfillits legislative mission. However, Justice Miller wondered what could possibly be the legislative intent behind conducting this investigation.
To inquire into the nature and history of the real-estate pool. How indefinite! What was the real-estate pool? Is it charged with any crime or offence? Ifso, the courts alone can punish the members of it. Is it charged with a fraud against the government? Here, again, the courts, and they alone, can afforda remedy . . . Can the rights of the pool, or of its members, and the rightsof the debtor, and of the creditor of the debtor, be determined by the report of a committee or by an act of Congress? If they cannot, what authority hasthe House to enter upon this investigation into the private affairs of individuals who hold no office under the government.
Since the House had no authority to investigate the matter in the first place, the Court said, it certainly had no power to hold Kilbourn in contempt. Kilbourn's suit was upheld.
Congressional Immunity
However, the Court was not willing to go so far as to say that the members ofCongress who had improperly conducted their investigation should be punished. The Constitution holds that members of Congress "shall not be questioned inany other place" for any speech or debate that takes place in Congress. Theframers of the Constitution believed such a provision was necessary if members of Congress were to feel free to make laws that might sometimes be unpopular or controversial. Therefore, no one who had been elected to Congress couldbe punished for what happened to Kilbourn.
Thompson, however, was not a member of Congress, and he could be punished. The question of what his punishment should be was remanded to a lower court. Meanwhile, however, the Supreme Court had established an important principle: Congress had no right to investigate the affairs of a private citizen, nor topunish private citizens for refusing to answer questions in improper investigations. Although later Court decisions gave Congress somewhat more latitude to investigate and interrogate, Kilbourn v. Thompson was an important step in defining the scope of congressional powers.
Related Cases
- Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798).
- Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866).
- Loan Association v. Topeka, 87 U.S. 655 (1875).
- United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).
Samuel R. Lowery, African American Lawyer
At the time that Kilbourn was argued, very few African Americans practiced law, Samuel Lowery was notable exception. Lowery (1832-1900) was raisedby his father and schooled (along with his father) in the ways of being a Christian pastor by the Reverend Talbot Fanning at Franklin College in Nashville, where his father worked as a farmer, livery stable operator and janitor. This education led him to his first position as a minister in 1848, but his good fortune was short-lived. As debates over slavery raged in the South, free African Americans were finding themselves the target of great hatred and violence. In 1856 Samuel had to leave his church as he and his father moved Northto find a better life for themselves. Although Samuel found himself in the pulpit once again by 1859, at the Harrison Street Christian Church in Cincinnati, Ohio, he longed to return to his southern home.
It was five years before the Union Army occupation of Nashville allowed for the African American community in the southern city to thrive again. When Lowery returned to his home town it was with a mission. He became a Christian Church missionary and worked to found the Tennessee Manual Labor University, making his father the president. Like the school that his father had worked forso many years before, their university taught agriculture, mechanical arts and Christian ethics. Unfortunately, the school fell under hard times when a fundraising venture ended in Samuel Lowrey's being excommunicated from the white Christian Church. Without their funding, the university was forced to close.
It was also during this time that Lowery had started to study and practice law. After moving to Huntsville, Alabama in 1875, and establishing another school (Lowery's Industrial Academy), his continued practice of the law earned him admittance to the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court on 2 February 1880. He wasthe first African American to receive this honor.
Sources
http://www.tnstate.edu/library/digital/lowery.htm
User Comments Add a comment…