Ex Parte Wolters

• Decision Date: 06 December 1911
• Citation: 144 S.W. 531
• Parties: Ex parte WOLTERS. Ex parte GRAY.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

144 S.W. 531

Ex parte WOLTERS.

Ex parte GRAY.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

December 6, 1911.

On Motion for Rehearing, February 28, 1912.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Petitions by J. F. Wolters and W. H. Gray for habeas corpus to obtain discharge from imprisonment under orders of the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, holding them in contempt for refusal to answer questions asked them by investigating committees. Relators discharged.

A full statement of the facts relating to the Wolters Case will be found in the dissenting opinion by Judge PRENDERGAST, and in the Gray Case in the opinion by Judge HARPER; the essential facts being similar in the two cases.

Jonathan Lane, R. H. Ward, W. A. Hanger, J. L. Storey, H. M. Garwood, Nelson Phillips, R. S. Neblett, J. B. Stubbs, and William Thompson, for relators. D. W. Odell, Cullen F. Thomas, Luther Nickels, C. M. Cureton, and C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. Ex parte Wolters.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

The applicant was adjudged guilty of contempt of the House of Representatives, at the recent called session of the Legislature, for refusing to answer questions propounded by a committee appointed by that body to inquire into sundry and divers things supposed to have occurred in connection with the prohibition election held on July 22, 1911. If this election had resulted favorably to prohibition, the proposed amendment would have supplanted the present system of local option and placed in effect state-wide prohibition. The result, however, was antagonistic to prohibition, and the amendment was lost by a majority of about 6,000 votes.

On June 20, 1911, his excellency, Governor Colquitt, issued a proclamation calling a special session of the 32d Legislature, to convene on Monday, July 31, 1911, in which proclamation he indicated the purposes to be: (1) To make appropriations for the support of the state government and for the public service for the fiscal years beginning September 1, 1911, and September 1, 1912. (2) To apportion the state into senatorial districts and into representative districts, and to fix the basis of representation therefor. (3) To consider and act upon such other matters as may be presented by the Governor, pursuant to section 40 of article 3 of the Constitution of Texas.

The Legislature met, and, in pursuance to said call, began its work on July 31, 1911. About August 1st, realizing the fact that authority had not been mentioned in the proclamation of the Governor for the purposes for which concurrent resolution No. 1 was introduced in the Senate, 17 members of the Senate, who were all favorable to state-wide prohibition, presented said resolution to the Governor. The first section of that resolution related to the amendment of the election laws, so as to further provide against illegal payment of poll taxes, and to enact such other laws as were deemed by the committee necessary to safeguard the ballot box, and to secure elections without taint of irregularity, fraud, or other corrupt practices. The second section of the resolution related to the prohibition of brewery owners, stockholders therein, saloons, saloon owners, and all others connected directly or indirectly with the liquor traffic, from contributing to campaign funds to influence elections, and also prohibiting persons from receiving, using, or disbursing funds so contributed by those engaged in the liquor traffic. The remaining sections of the resolution referred to legislation in regard to the sale of liquor in some form or another. The Governor refused to respond to this request, and declined to submit the matters therein mentioned for the action of the Legislature. Concurrent resolution No. 1 was abandoned by the Legislature. To meet this refusal of the Governor, each branch of the Legislature acted independently in the appointment of committees.

On the 3d of August a resolution, not concurrent, was introduced in the House of Representatives by friends of state-wide prohibition, providing for the creation of a committee to investigate supposed irregularities occurring at the election held on July 22, 1911. This committee, by the terms of the resolution, was empowered to investigate whether or not there had been poll taxes illegally secured, or receipts or exemption certificates, etc., issued, and, if paid for or issued, by whom paid for and by whom issued, and to whom issued, and who furnished the money for such purposes. It was also empowered to inquire into all violations and evasions of the election laws of the state, and the manner and method of such evasions, and by whom made or instigated. These matters all related to the election held on July 22d in regard to the prohibition amendment. There were other matters mentioned in the resolution to be submitted to said committee unnecessary to enumerate.

The committee was promptly created and given all the power possible to be conferred by the House of Representatives to carry out the purposes of the resolution. This included the issuance of process, its execution and enforcement, and providing for the expenses incurred by the members of the committee. It may be also mentioned as a matter of some materiality that the friends of the amendment recently defeated met at Ft. Worth and passed a number of resolutions condemnatory of those who opposed the prohibition amendment, in which many derelictions were charged, intimating corrupt practices, and calling upon the Legislature to cause an investigation to be made in regard to these charges. This occurred two days before the Legislature was to meet at Austin. The convention at Ft. Worth adjourned to meet at Austin simultaneously with the convening of the Legislature. On the day the Legislature did convene at Austin, those gentlemen, or a large part of them, met in the city of Austin and held a meeting. Quite a number of the members of the Legislature attended that meeting, that body having adjourned for that purpose, at which meeting practically the same resolutions were indorsed that had been indorsed at the Ft. Worth meeting. It is also stated that it was understood or agreed in that meeting that the Legislature should carry out the will and wishes expressed at said meeting. The above is shown by the record in this case. The creation of the committee and its work occurred after the Governor had declined to submit the matters requested in the concurrent resolution No. 1.

The consideration "of the advisability of submitting additional questions for the consideration of the Legislature" was but a courteous refusal to comply with request contained in concurrent resolution No. 1 on the part of the Governor. The Legislature so understood and acted. The committee, after its appointment, met and began work. Among other witnesses summoned before it was this applicant, who was chairman of the anti state-wide executive committee, and, as its head, managed the campaign against state-wide prohibition. Many questions were asked of and answered by him. Other questions were asked, which he declined to answer. These cover several pages of the committee's report. It is deemed unnecessary here to set out all these matters. They can be summarized with this statement: He declined to answer questions seeking to elicit information as to who contributed to the campaign fund of the anti state-wide side of the issue, and the amount received, from whom received, as well as to whom he paid out the money contributed. Names were suggested in the questions to him, but to all these he firmly declined to give an answer. We may sum up, in a general way, that he did state the money received by him or paid to him for such purpose was not used in violation of any of the laws of the state, or so as to infringe any idea of good morals, or in any illegitimate manner. There are many matters of evidence brought out in the record which brought in review the conduct of the political campaign and incidents thereto pertaining. These are not mentioned, because not thought to be necessary to a decision of this case.

Several questions are presented for discussion. It is not the purpose of this opinion to review all these questions. The first one to be discussed is: Did the House of Representatives have authority to appoint the committee it did appoint? Second. If so, did that committee have authority to demand of applicant answers to the questions propounded to him, and were the questions and answers material to the matter under investigation? Both propositions should be answered in the negative. Be it remembered that this was a special, and not a regular or biennial, session of the Legislature. The scope of the authority of a special session of the Legislature is to be found in section 40 of article 3 of the Constitution, which reads as follows: "When the Legislature shall be convened in a special session, there shall be no legislation upon subjects other than those designated in the proclamation of the Governor calling such session, or presented to them by the Governor, and no such session shall be of longer duration than thirty days."

From this it will be observed that, when the Legislature is convened in special session, such express limitation is placed upon the power of that body that it cannot legislate upon any subject or subjects except those specially designated in the proclamation of the Governor calling the body together, or such as may be subsequently presented to that body by the Governor. This limited rule set out in the above section does not apply to the Legislature when sitting in its biennial session. It will therefore be observed there is a marked difference between the power of the Legislature in regular session as compared with its power when sitting in a special session. The Legislature by the terms of article 2, § 1, of the Constitution, is made the lawmaking power of the state. This provision of the Constitution limits that body to legislation, unless there be found...