Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 4/19/1897

In Re Chapman

Citations

  • 166 U.S. 661
  • 17 S. Ct. 677
  • 41 L. Ed. 1154
  • 1897 U.S. LEXIS 2058

Syllabus

<p>The legislation contained in sections 102 and 104 of the Revised Statutes was originally enacted “more effectually to enforce the attendance of witnesses on the summons of either House of Congress, and to compel them to discover testimony”'; and, when reasonably construed, is not open to the objection that it conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution.</p> <p>Statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will effectuate the legislative intention, and avoid, if possible, an unjust or absurd conclusion. Sunkle v. United States, 122 U. ,S. 543, again questioned, as it has not been approved in subsequent decisions.</p> <p>Congress possesses the constitutional power to enact a statute to enforce the attendance of witnesses, and to compel them to make disclosure of evidence to enable the respective bodies to discharge their legislative functions.</p> <p>While Congress cannot divest itself or either of its Houses of the inherent power to punish for contempt, it may provide that contumacy in a witness called to testify in a matter properly under consideration by either House, and deliberately refusing to answer questions pertinent thereto, shall be a misdemeanor against the United States.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • recognizing that Congress “necessarily possesses the inherent power of self-pro tection”
  • recognizing that Congress “necessarily possesses the inherent power of self- protection”
  • recognizing that Congress “necessarily possesses the inherent power of self-protection”
  • stating that “nothing is better settled than that statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will effectuate the legislative intention, and, if possible, so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion”
  • stating that “nothing is better settled than that statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will effectuate the legislative intention, and, if possible, so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion”
  • “[Njothing is better settled, than that statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will effectuate the legislative intention, and, if possible, so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Fullee, Hablan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

150 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named In Re Chapman

56 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.