Ex parte Hague

• Decision Date: 19 May 1930
• Docket Number: No. 161.,161.
• Citation: 150 A. 322
• Parties: Ex parte HAGUE.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

150 A. 322

Ex parte HAGUE.

No. 161.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

May 19, 1930.

BLACK, J., dissenting.

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Application for habeas corpus by Frank Hague to secure his release from arrest for contempt in refusing to answer questions propounded by a joint session of the Legislature. The Vice Chancellor ordered petitioner discharged (105 N. J. Eq. 134, 147 A. 220), and the Legislature through its sergeant at arms appeals.

Affirmed.

Russell E. Watson, of New Brunswick, for appellant.

Merritt Lane, of Newark, for respondent.

GUMMERE, C. J.

The Legislature of 1929 adopted a supplemental resolution (P. L. 1929, p. 803) appointing a joint committee, the members of which were specifically named therein, and requiring it to "make a survey of all questions of public interest; to investigate violations of law and the conduct of any State, county or municipal official, State, county or municipal department, State, county or municipal commission, State, county or municipal board, or State, county or municipal body, to report whether the functions of such officials, departments, commissions, board and bodies have been or are being lawfully and properly discharged for the purpose of obtaining information relative thereto as a basis for such legislative action as the Senate and General Assembly may deem necessary and proper."

In the conduct of the investigation made by the committee pursuant to the mandate of this resolution, it appeared that in certain condemnation proceedings, two of which were instituted by the Hudson county board of freeholders and the other by the city of Jersey City, the condemning agencies were compelled to pay for the property acquired more than half a million dollars in excess of the value thereof a comparatively short time before the institution of the several proceedings. As is stated in the brief of counsel appearing before us on behalf of the Legislature, the tremendous financial gain accruing to those involved compelled the conclusion that public moneys were wasted as a result of a conspiracy which was operated under cover of legal form. The investigation also disclosed that the proprietors of moving picture theaters in Hoboken and in Jersey City paid large sums of money for the purpose of inducing the municipal agents of these cities to refrain from enforcing the Sunday closing laws. The moneys so paid during the four years preceding the investigation by the joint committee amounted to over $200,000. The examination of witnesses by the committee further disclosed that, owing to the illegal manipulation of bus franchise fees in the city of Jersey City, that municipality, during the three years and a half preceding the investigation, was defrauded of taxes approximating $35,000.

Having ascertained these facts, the committee then subpœnaed as a witness Frank Hague, the mayor of Jersey City, and after a preliminary examination, asked him the following ten questions, each of which he refused to answer: (1) Now, during the years 1922 and 1923 did you have a bank account in the National City Bank of the City of New York? (2) What bank accounts did you have during the years 1922 and 1923? (3) During the years 1922 and 1923, what was the total amount that you had on deposit in banks? (4) During the years 1922 and 1923 what was the largest amount you had in hand in cash? (5) Now, in 1923 you purchased a property at Deal, N. J., in the name of John J. McMahon as dummy for $30,000. The purchase price was paid by John Milton's check, and you reimbursed John Milton in cash. Where did you get that cash? (6) Now, in 1926, Mr. Hague, you purchased property at Deal, N. J., in John Milton's name as dummy. The purchase price was $65,000. Mr. Milton paid for it with his check. You afterwards reimbursed Mr. Milton in cash. In 1927 you improved that property and spent on it $59,520.50. The payments were made by John Milton's checks as the work progressed, you reimbursed him in cash. Where did you get the $65,000 and the $59,520.50 with which you reimbursed Mr. Milton in cash? (7) Did you have all of that money in any bank or banks? (8) Now in this connection, let me ask you where you got the money with which you purchased the Deal property for $65,000 in cash and improved it in the amount of $59,520.50 which you paid in cash. (9) In 1926 you acquired a property on Gifford avenue, Jersey City, at a cost of $27,500. The title was taken in the name of Thomas McNulty as a dummy and the purchase price was paid by John Milton's check. You thereupon reimbursed John Milton in cash. Where did you get that $27,500? (10) Mr. Hague, in what bank or trust companies or other financial institutions did you maintain accounts while acting as Mayor since 1921?

Upon the refusal of Hague to answer any one of these questions, the joint committee reported that fact to the Legislature. Thereupon a joint session of the Legislature was called, Hague was subpoenaed to appear before it, and, upon his obeying the mandate of the subpœna, the questions which he had refused to answer were again submitted to him by the joint session, and he again refused to answer any of them. Based upon this refusal, the joint session adjudged him in contempt, caused a warrant for his arrest to be issued, and directed that he be confined in the common jail of the county of Mercer until such time as he should make known to the chairman of the said joint committee in writing that he was willing to answer the questions already recited. His arrest followed the issuing of the warrant, and he applied to V. C. Fallon for a habeas corpus, praying that he be discharged from custody upon the ground that the warrant was illegally issued. Upon the hearing had upon this application, the Vice Chancellor concluded that the arrest of Hague was without legal justification, and ordered him discharged (105 N. J. Eq. 134,147 A. 220). Thereupon the Legislature, through its agent, the sergeant at arms, who was intrusted with the execution of the warrant for Hague's arrest, appealed to this court from the order of discharge.

The fundamental question involved in the determination of this appeal is whether in the submitting of these questions the Legislature was exercising a function vested in it by the Constitution, or was invading the judicial department of the government. Article 3 of our Constitution declares that "the powers of the government shall be divided into three distinct departments—the legislative, executive and judicial; and no person or persons belonging to, or constituting one of these departments, shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except as herein expressly provided."

As will have been noted, the resolution under which all of these proceedings were had provided, among other matters, that the joint committee should ...