Mcgrain v. Daugherty

273 U.S. 135 (1927)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Harry M. Daugherty became the Attorney General from March 5, 1921, until March 28, 1924. Charges of misfeasance and nonfeasance in the Department of Justice after he became its supervising head were brought to the attention of the Senate. They demanded that DOJ be investigated. The Senate regarded the charges as grave and requiring legislative attention and action. A resolution was adopted authorizing and directing a select committee of five senators to investigate circumstances and facts and report the same to the Senate, concerning the alleged failure of Harry M. Daugherty to prosecute properly violators of the Sherman Anti-trust Act and the Clayton Act against monopolies and unlawful restraint of trade among other specific allegations. The resolution also authorized the committee to send for books and papers, to subpoena witnesses, to administer oaths, and to sit at such times and places as it might deem advisable. The Committee issued and caused to be duly served on D -- who was a brother of Harry M. Daugherty and president of the Midland National Bank of Washington Court House, Ohio, -- a subpoena commanding him to appear before the committee for the purpose of giving testimony and to bring specified documents related to the investigation. D failed to appear. The Committee issued and caused to be duly served on D another subpoena commanding him to appear before it for the purpose of giving testimony relating to the subject under consideration -- nothing being said in this subpoena about bringing records, books or papers. D failed to appear. The President of the Senate pro tempore issued his warrant commanding the Sergeant at Arms or his deputy to take into custody the body of D and bring him before the Senate, then and there to answer such questions pertinent to the matter under inquiry. The warrant was issued to the Sergeant at Arms who directed that it be executed by P, already his deputy, and delivered it to him for execution. P took the witness into custody at Cincinnati, Ohio. D petitioned the federal district court for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was granted. The court held the attachment and detention unlawful and discharged D, the decision being put on the ground that the Senate in directing the investigation and in ordering the attachment exceeded its powers under the Constitution. P prayed and was allowed a direct appeal to this Court under §238 of the Judicial Code as then existing.